PV surrounded by murderer lovers?
Euro
that, in the last two years, PV called "murderer lover" the following
persons:
- Desmond, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=KSBD8.478107%24K52.78789485%40typhoon.tampabay.r
r.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=Nzcf9.197282%24Rx4.2155229%40twister.tampabay.rr
.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=QMVL8.90927%24ec1.1951930%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=s1reov4c7ej89mm3b79fs4qmabj97ra9bv%404ax.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=su37avkg9rn7bnn18rlub297gilr6cnfpf%404ax.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=BWkD9.260635%24r7.4795369%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
and plenty of other occurences
- Peter Morris, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=dJgI9.304481%24fa.6037848%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=q0_E9.302055%24r7.5423214%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=0f4pivgpbce42gre6ro1vs0od5jmkjilu0%404ax.com
- JPB, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=8rd2nvk65ko1bbtndqhmv5orqbd3imkt8n%404ax.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=fb6smvko1eldteta86bsul4elsruki8799%404ax.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=1l78dvkmo5ll91hpo8rbajgtvr7m4ueadk%404ax.com
- Spike, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=sovp9vogqo39rc7dqfm5hb4f750l4b1s2p%404ax.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=1pgbavg38q162rhthqpu2f2kcf8vaoa0pe%404ax.com
(in that one, Spike was called "worse than a murderer lover", but it is true
that PV also suggested he was a zoophile)
www.google.com/groups?&selm=rk34avkg9jga3hqlq8eib9f1ibufl8jkf3%404ax.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=AiTsa.57465%24My6.1029896%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
- Fitzherbert
www.google.com/groups?&selm=a448av4r0navn1k0j034ld6luim7vehopu%404ax.com
(didn't see any others - curious huh? But PV prefers to call you a racist
apparently)
- Jane (yes, PV stooped _that_ low)
www.google.com/groups?&selm=Q7Dh8.63494%24TV4.10855707%40typhoon.tampabay.rr
.com
- Brett, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=gI%250a.25038%24AQ3.436517%40twister.tampabay.rr
.com
- Earl, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=cQ7F5.72253%24O95.5700326%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.
com
- Juergen, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=s2sT6.402355%24o9.63603435%40typhoon.tampabay.rr
.com
(notice this admirable hypocritical way of insulting without insulting,
while insulting anyway: "I hate to use the term 'murderer lover,' because I
don't REALLY believe you are." - PV didn't _really_ believe, but he wrote it
anyway and maybe he just believed it after all).
Fortunately, PV didn't always have such scruples: see
www.google.com/groups?&selm=HCOS7.111839%24Ga5.16823320%40typhoon.tampabay.r
r.com
- Cardinal Lustiger (while he thought Lustiger was a respectable "born
Jew"), see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=6n4eov0pamemabgiplltggjd4ihfu11f1i%404ax.com
- Dirtdog, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=_7bI8.63121%24YI5.999369%40twister.tampabay.rr.c
om
(no more links???)
- And... me, see:
www.google.com/groups?&selm=b9heovcjdqelvukr8cgtmqf1i2r41bmg6e%404ax.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=3ldgcvk5k6872irclq2d49i2ksiejfgsmu%404ax.com
(among others...)
------------------------------------------------
Well, in conclusion of this empirical study, the definition of a murderer
lover on this newsgroup is not "someone who loves murderers", but "someone
who wrote, or did something PV doesn't agree with".
Of course, with his maniac attitudes, PV tried to create a hierarchy by
"numbering" murderer-lovers. He was bluntly disapproved by St George
(www.google.com/groups?&selm=aaujef%24o3s%241%40knossos.btinternet.com ).
This is how PV has managed to turn news:alt.activism.death-penalty into a
group that is heavily polluted by his vulgarity, instead of discussing the
question of the abolition of death penalty.
Euro
---------------------------
Notes:
I must however stress that PV made some attempts to appear more respectable
than he actually is.
"Obviously, the use of 'murderer lover,' disgusts me".
PV,
www.google.com/groups?&selm=x9m0a.23163%24QQ4.210207%40twister.tampabay.rr.c
om
(we're glad to see how easily PV can jump over what disgusts him)
"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
PV,
www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.r
r.com
(so remember that each time PV uses this word, he is vile and insane. I am
glad to proclaim that PV has been insane and vile for exactly 13 pages of
posts found on Google)
"You're the only 'murderer-lover' here, desipoo".
Written in January 2003 by PV
www.google.com/groups?&selm=WVvU9.73756%24Sa3.1736700%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
(that was my usual rubric "welcome to PV's fabulous world, the world where
everything is true and its contrary as well)
j.rennie1
"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7cbd38281e52eb3...@news.meganetnews.com...
> Well, after a search on Google (theme: "PV murderer lover"), it appears
> that, in the last two years, PV called "murderer lover" the following
> persons:
He didn't include me. Very sensible.
Euro
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
??????:1LVib.261$M04.3...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
A small caveat here... I didn't open 13 Google pages of posts and may have
forgotten someone. The list, though, isn't exclusive.
I address my anticipated apologies to those I might not have mentionned and
invite anyone who knows of an omission to post the corresponding URL here.
Euro
Earl Evleth
f7cbd38281e52eb3...@news.meganetnews.com, "Euro"
<vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> PV called "murderer lover"
There is a difference between a lover of murders and a "murderer lover."
Unless I got my information wrong, Jesus has been ranked among
the "murderer lovers". The Christian idea of redemption holds
a route out for murderers.
Many of us humanists are less accepting that Jesus, we don`t
go the whole love route but we do resist hate consuming us.
PV has not yet attained this particular state of grace.
Therefore, we should pity him.
Earl
danh
news:BBB1FED9.16C89%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
[...]
> Many of us humanists are less accepting that Jesus, we don`t
> go the whole love route but we do resist hate consuming us.
>
> PV has not yet attained this particular state of grace.
Neither have some abolitionists.
> Therefore, we should pity him.
Should to abolitionists also be pitied?
danh
news:jlpt51-...@zeouane.org...
> le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:48:22 -0400, dans l'article
<bmhct6$bfv$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>, danh <da...@lexisnexis.com> a dit
...
>
> >> Many of us humanists are less accepting that Jesus, we don`t
> >> go the whole love route but we do resist hate consuming us.
> >>
> >> PV has not yet attained this particular state of grace.
>
> > Neither have some abolitionists.
>
> need only look at us, to witness the pale, heavenly light that shines from
> within.
Sorry Desmond, I can't stomach this any further. This is the entire text of
the email you sent me yesterday, subject: The Scum.
"I hate them, Dan.
Any chance to destroy the fuckers, I'll take it.
D.
--
Desmond Coughlan |'Io non mori, e non rimasi vivo'
It takes a lot to disgust me, but the lies, deceptions, personal invective
and lack of discussion has done it. There's no point in attempting
communication further with anyone on this ng. Good bye.
[...]
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <1LVib.261$M04.3...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
Although not mentioned on Euro's list, I think I have been called a murderer
lover. Although I may have merely been lumped with Earl.
Donna Evleth
>
>
Euro
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr>
??????:3f8c48c9$0$7589$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
Welcome to the club, Donna, and sorry for having confused you with Earl ;-)
Sorry to see that PV has also been "vile and insane" (to borrow his own
words) in an exchange with you. This newsgroup deserves better.
Euro
Richard J
I think the correct category according to this guy would be a lover of a
murderer lover perhaps. Remember, should you ever tire of Earl, I know
a reasonable retentionist who would love to meet you.
Teflon
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Should to abolitionists also be pitied?
I see that you're as literate as ever, Daniel.
Sigh.
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))
Earl Evleth
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
> Should to abolitionists also be pitied?
No
FitzHerbert
<snip>
> - Spike, see:
>
> www.google.com/groups?&selm=sovp9vogqo39rc7dqfm5hb4f750l4b1s2p%404ax.com
> www.google.com/groups?&selm=1pgbavg38q162rhthqpu2f2kcf8vaoa0pe%404ax.com
> (in that one, Spike was called "worse than a murderer lover", but it is true
> that PV also suggested he was a zoophile)
What he actually said was something like: 'Spike likes to fuck dogs up the bum'.
> www.google.com/groups?&selm=rk34avkg9jga3hqlq8eib9f1ibufl8jkf3%404ax.com
> www.google.com/groups?&selm=AiTsa.57465%24My6.1029896%40twister.tampabay.rr.
> com
>
> - Fitzherbert
>
> www.google.com/groups?&selm=a448av4r0navn1k0j034ld6luim7vehopu%404ax.com
> (didn't see any others - curious huh?
Nah, he's called me it loads. Take the 'Intrigued...' thread for example.
*****
Hope this helps,
Neville
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> I think the correct category according to this guy would be a lover of a
> murderer lover perhaps. Remember, should you ever tire of Earl, I know
> a reasonable retentionist who would love to meet you.
*sound of Mrs Jackson's boot connecting with Richard's arse*
A Planet Visitor
>On 14/10/03 17:46, in article
>f7cbd38281e52eb3...@news.meganetnews.com, "Euro"
><vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PV called "murderer lover"
>
>
>There is a difference between a lover of murders and a "murderer lover."
>
>Unless I got my information wrong, Jesus has been ranked among
>the "murderer lovers". The Christian idea of redemption holds
>a route out for murderers.
>
Jesus always spoke in parables, and never contended that the secular
use of the DP was not appropriate. Some small examples of very
meaningful parables demonstrate that --
1) His "render unto Caesar," which can be seen as the acceptance of
secular law in the temporal world.
2) His admonishment to Peter to not murder those who had come to
arrest Jesus... stating that to do so, Peter could expect to die by that same
sword, from the application of secular justice, with the words -- "Those
who live by the sword (murderers), shall die by the sword (justice)."
3) His admission that control of secular justice was not his aim -- in
stating "My kingdom is not of this world"
4) His words of "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved."
Which speaks only of saving in HIS kingdom.
I do not consider Jesus a 'murderer-lover' in any sense, nor do I
consider him a 'savior' in any sense. If he WAS a 'real person,'
which even that is debatable, he was simply a 'moral philosopher,'
no different than so many other 'moral philosophers.' One who
surrounded himself with enough others that the Roman empire felt
threatened their control over the local population. I doubt
seriously that ANYONE from that age of our existence actually
OPPOSED the DP for murderers. The fable that Jesus was
executed by the Jews, has been the fountainhead of more hate
for the Jews than can be imagined. Plus it has formed some part
of the bedrock of opposition to the DP by various fanatic Christians,
who presume that murderers can be compared to Jesus. Believing
that 'saving' murderers can be 'equated' to 'saving' Jesus. How
utterly... utterly absurd!!!
Whether we have 'morally' traveled forward or backward, in the
passing years, with many now contending that ALL murderers can
NEVER lose an imaginary RIGHT TO LIFE, is still debatable.
I find a lot to argue that we have moved 'morally forward,' IMHO,
because we no longer execute for some very trivial reasons.
But I also find a lot to argue that we have moved 'morally backward,'
in the recent years, IMHO, if we contend that ALL murderers have
WON a 'right to life,' regardless of how many lives THEY MURDER.
Like the movement of the stock market, we have overcompensated
the 'value of the company we keep afloat.' What started out as a
well-intentioned effort to distance ourselves from the over-zealous
application of the DP, has now served to more align those who
oppose the DP for ALL murderers to those murderers themselves,
rather than the rest of humanity.
To me, at least... there is a point we reach at which I MUST SAY -
"Terminating the life of some PARTICULAR murderer is moral,
reasonable, and pragmatic." We serve our own morality by
recognizing that point, which it seems to me MUST exist, and
simply cannot be presumed as not existing at all, or stretch
out to infinity, while also obviously serving our own self-protection
from the further acts of those few murderers.
>Many of us humanists are less accepting that Jesus, we don`t
>go the whole love route but we do resist hate consuming us.
>
Please do not call yourself a 'humanist,' Earl. Your black soul
rather disproves that. You are an anti-Humanist. You should
accept that as the recognized agenda you have chosen... not only
in your views respecting the DP... but your views of humanity in
general.
>PV has not yet attained this particular state of grace.
>
Unlike you... I never presume I hold a particular 'state of grace.' I
am still searching for answers, and will do so until the day I die. I
post my opinions here in the hope that I might better grasp a hint
of those answers in my inward self, while I am not sure that I can
even ask the right questions to search for those answers. While you
presume your august presence in AADP is God-like and has all the
answers. Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than presuming
to have all the answers, while demonstrating the colossal amount
of conscientious ignorance that you often display. Look in the mirror.
>Therefore, we should pity him.
>
Conserve your pity... save it for those who would destroy others. You
only have so much within you... and your 'tank is running empty,' having
expended so much of it in the 'pity' you hold for those who ravage our
species in rampant individual murder upon murder of others of our species.
If you wish to show pity, and weep... then weep for the VICTIMS...
and not those who would destroy... See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/New_victims.htm
>Earl
A Planet Visitor
There are many abolitionists that I pity... thus, you cannot speak your 'no' as an
axiom. It simply remains your opinion. Should murderer-lovers be pitied? An
opinion from you would be nice for a change... rather than a reply that
presumes another false axiom.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>news:jlpt51-...@zeouane.org...
>> le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:48:22 -0400, dans l'article
><bmhct6$bfv$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>, danh <da...@lexisnexis.com> a dit
>...
>>
>> >> Many of us humanists are less accepting that Jesus, we don`t
>> >> go the whole love route but we do resist hate consuming us.
>> >>
>> >> PV has not yet attained this particular state of grace.
>>
>> > Neither have some abolitionists.
>>
>> Au contraire. The Light Dwellers are love and compassion incarnate. One
>> need only look at us, to witness the pale, heavenly light that shines from
>> within.
>
>Sorry Desmond, I can't stomach this any further. This is the entire text of
>the email you sent me yesterday, subject: The Scum.
>
>"I hate them, Dan.
>Any chance to destroy the fuckers, I'll take it.
>
Oh MY GOD!! Further... ABSOLUTE... confirmation... that Desmond
actually intends to commit PHYSICAL MURDER if he has "any chance."
What an absolute MANIAC infects AADP... Desmond Coughlan is his
name. And I am certain that the 'scum' he refers to is not those who
only support the DP...but to all Americans... in the most depraved display of
bigotry and hate ever witnessed in AADP.
PV
>D.
>
>--
>
>Desmond Coughlan |'Io non mori, e non rimasi vivo'
>
>des...@zeouane.org
>
>http://www.zeouane.org"
>
>
>It takes a lot to disgust me, but the lies, deceptions, personal invective
>and lack of discussion has done it. There's no point in attempting
>communication further with anyone on this ng. Good bye.
>
>[...]
>
Rather, dan... if you cannot stomach desi... do as so many have done...
killfile him... and then read my comments to the self-loathing posts he
creates if you wish. Or not if that is also what you wish. But don't simply
admit that HE WINS!!! You might as well throw up your hands in the
face of Satan, and claim he wins. Do you have any idea how MANY
rational posters that this maniac has chased away? Don't be another
casualty.
PV
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:0ci1pvshqae6347mg...@4ax.com...
I reserve my pity to the victims, contrary to you who only instrumentalize
their sorrow in support to state-sponsored vendetta.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
If you arrived at that conclusion... you are mistaken. Earl is rather
obviously a murderer-lover. I will not back down on that one inch...
since it represents my firm opinion. However; you hold none of
those principles that make a murderer-lover different from a principled
abolitionist. Although I will argue until doomsday that your 'principles'
are wrongheaded, they are not so because of your love for murderers...
but rather a misplaced belief that it is somehow 'wrong' for society to
kill anyone, regardless of the cost to innocent life of not doing so. As
I see your view. This misplaced belief perhaps nurtured and enhanced
by your close association with your spouse, whom you would not
TOTALLY separate his views from your own. In respect to what I
perceive of your view, I find it holds a moral implication, which must
be considered since the taking of ANY life... even in the most certain
of self-defense acts, must necessarily contain some grain of evil,
simply because a life is being taken. However; I am challenged to
operate in my own morality, which believes that if faced with two evils...
always choose the lesser evil.
I find the DP as a concept as the lesser of two evils, considering the
taking of a human life, or possibly permitting that person to take a human
life. You obviously disagree with that... and I can find no flaw with your
disagreement... other than I disagree with it in an abstract personal
sense, since it conflicts with my subjective viewpoint. I hold that
murder is the watershed event which is the ONLY act which could
POSSIBLY justify the DP, and I find we execute far too many, whom
I believe it is not necessary to execute. But the idea of permitting
ALL murderers to have an UNLIMITED 'right to life' regardless of
how many murders they commit, or how often they commit those
murders... leaves my moral blood run cold.
It has become much easier for me to characterize certain posters here
as 'murderer-lovers,' given my long standing disgust with Desmond
referring to ALL retentionists as 'deathies,' and your husband's
characterization of ALL retentionists as having a 'corroded soul.'
Do you find THOSE characterizations of ALL retentionists as having
some 'moral merit'?
In the case of euro.. it's rather obvious that he has grasped at this pitiful
straw, expecting to demonstrate that HE is not a murderer-lover, simply
because I have found similar characteristics in others. Let me put any
such thought to rest... since in my entire posting history here.. in my
opinion, euro is SECOND ONLY TO DESMOND, in being a dedicated
MURDERER-LOVER. An opinion which rests on euro's words, rather
than something I simply dreamed up as an insult, as your hubby dreamed
up 'corroded soul,' as an insult without the slightest evidence within my
posting history of such. But in euro's case... we have HIS OWN
WORDS -- As proven by --
1) Euro has claimed that there is no gradation between murderers and innocent
slaves -- See -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetnews.com
And this is rather again proven by his refusal to choose between saving ALL
murderers from the DP, and abolishing the DP or saving ALL innocent slaves from
slavery and abolishing slavery. He found those choices to be EXACTLY the
same... and thus... as Buridan's ass... he permitted both murderers to be
executed and slaves to remain in slavery... because of his immoral belief that
there is no difference between murderers and innocent slaves. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7bdcb795c96cae1ec88d8d6ea691de18%40news.meganetnews.com
If YOU had the POWER... which was within the 'thought experiment' I
offered... and could ONLY save EITHER all murderers and end the DP,
OR save all innocent slaves and end slavery, in a society which practiced
both the DP and slavery... which would YOU choose to abolish? Or
would you REFUSE to choose, as he did, and allow BOTH murderers
to be executed and slaves to remain slaves, although you could have saved
one group and not the other? euro refused to choose either, and 'blamed'
it on the 'politicians' who had offered him the choice of only one or the other,
and then on the 'voters' for some reason or other. But he would NEVER
assume the responsibility HIMSELF... in the most cowardly of moral
choices, he decided to allow BOTH the DP and SLAVERY to continue.
I would INSTANTLY choose to abolish slavery and free all the innocent
slaves rather than 'save' all murderers from the DP, and end the DP, given
only the choice of one or the other.
2) You recall that you called a comment from Desmond, "obscene".. in which
Desmond laughed at the murder of more than a dozen human beings as
only being 'population control'? Well... euro DEFENDED Desmond's comment...
totally. And even EXPANDED on the thought that someone could describe
the murder of more than a dozen human beings in SUCH A CONTEXT of
'population control.' See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dccefe1b2a9c20dd7479a9ef7923a3c9%40news.meganetnews.com
3) euro has stated there is NO reason to 'separate' murderers from non-murderers
when hoping to make progress for our species -- in his words -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and murderers
(the evil ones)." Pardon me, if I believe we don't make much 'progress' as a species
if we find murderers and non murderers as NO DIFFERENT from each other. I
believe the words 'good' and 'evil' have the opposite meaning, thus require 180
degrees of separation between them. Do you think there is NO DIFFERENCE
between murderers and non murderers? See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
4) euro has claimed that John Wayne Gacy, and all murderers have the
same 'human rights' in every respect as innocent slaves and non murderers.
Given that FREEDOM is the essential human right that is taken away
from innocent slaves... then unless he would argue that innocent slaves do
NOT have a 'human right' to FREEDOM, he is arguing that Gacy and all
murderers ALSO have a 'human right' to that SAME FREEDOM.
See items 3) and 5) in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mv4eovc41pif2r8lgn9fpt5nmm9mu9hetu%404ax.com
5) euro has called the proposed elevation of a MURDERER to a position
regarded as "Blessed" by a Catholic Cardinal prelate to be a MORAL act.
An act that would allow that murderer to be VENERATED, honored as
SACRED, by the followers of that church. Imagine... a murderer...
raised to being "Blessed" and the last step to possible Sainthood... being
considered a MORAL decision. Tell me that doesn't express LOVE for
that murderer? Tell me that isn't an INSULT to every victim of murder?
See euro fawning over that Catholic Cardinal in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
6) euro has claimed it is 'irrelevant' to compare one state-permitted act which
results in the death of 40,000 innocent humans each year, with another
state-permitted act which results in the death of about 35 proven murderers
each year. Arguing that those murderers are more important than those
40,000 innocent humans, and thus are an "irrelevant comparison." Yet
the state could prevent BOTH those 40,000 innocent human deaths,
and those 35 proven murderer deaths, if the state so wished -- See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=d0070ee037929d85241ce6fa8625ed1a%40news.meganetnews.com
Plus, there are so many instances of him providing out and out LIES.
I do not make these up, Donna... those are euro's WORDS... not mine. And
they bear examination... since he is one, just as Desmond, who holds the same
agenda as you do in respect to opposition to the DP. You need to separate
reasonable opposition, from irrational raving lunatic opposition. Both sides
of this argument, admittedly have their share of irrational raving lunatic
opposition. But one needs to separate the wheat from the chaff, and not
presume that it's all chaff on one side, and wheat on the other... since I
do not presume it is that way. But I believe Desmond, euro, and your
hubby do.
PV
>Donna Evleth
A Planet Visitor
The one you really need to apologize to is your Maker, euro. Of course...
being a Godless murderer lover... you don't feel any necessity to do so.
While you are a murderer lover, and expect to hide from the words that
prove you are -- These words --
1) You have claimed that there is no gradation between murderers and innocent
slaves -- See -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetnews.com
And this is again proven by your refusal to choose between saving ALL
murderers from the DP, and abolishing the DP or saving ALL innocent slaves from
slavery and abolishing slavery. You found those choices to be EXACTLY the
same... and thus... as Buridan's ass... you PERMITTED BOTH murderers to be
executed AND slaves to remain in slavery... because of YOUR immoral inability
in finding no difference between murderers and innocent slaves. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7bdcb795c96cae1ec88d8d6ea691de18%40news.meganetnews.com
2) You DEFENDED Desmond's comment...which LAUGHED at the murder
of more than a dozen human being. Defended it TOTALLY. Even EXPANDING
on the thought that someone could describe the murder of more than a dozen human
beings in SUCH A CONTEXT of 'population control.' See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dccefe1b2a9c20dd7479a9ef7923a3c9%40news.meganetnews.com
3) You have stated there is no reason to 'separate' murderers from non-murderers
when hoping to make progress for our species -- in your words -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and murderers
(the evil ones)." Pardon me, if I believe we don't make much 'progress' as a species
if we find murderers and non murderers as NO DIFFERENT from each other. I
believe the words 'good' and 'evil' have the opposite meaning thus require 180
degrees of separation between them. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
4) You have claimed that John Wayne Gacy, and all murderers have the
same 'human rights' in every respect as innocent slaves and non murderers.
Given that FREEDOM is the essential human right that is taken away
from innocent slaves... then unless you would argue that innocent slaves do
NOT have a 'human right' to FREEDOM, you are arguing that Gacy and all
murderers ALSO have a 'human right' to that SAME FREEDOM.
See items 3) and 5) in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mv4eovc41pif2r8lgn9fpt5nmm9mu9hetu%404ax.com
5) You have called the proposed elevation of a MURDERER to a position
regarded as "Blessed" by a Catholic Cardinal prelate to be a MORAL act.
An act that would allow that murderer to be VENERATED, honored as
SACRED, by the followers of that church. Imagine... a murderer...
raised to being "Blessed" and the last step to possible Sainthood... being
considered a MORAL decision. Tell me that doesn't express LOVE for
that murderer? Tell me that isn't an INSULT to every victim of murder.
See your fawning over that Catholic Cardinal in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
6) You have claimed it is 'irrelevant' to compare one state-permitted act which
results in the death of 40,000 innocent humans each year, with another
state-permitted act which results in the death of about 35 proven murderers
each year. Arguing that those murderers are more important than those
40,000 innocent humans, and thus are an "irrelevant comparision." Yet
the state could prevent BOTH those 40,000 innocent human deaths,
and those 35 proven murderer deaths, if the state so wished -- See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=d0070ee037929d85241ce6fa8625ed1a%40news.meganetnews.com
Plus, there are so many instances of you providing out and out LIES. Your
lie as to the ICCPR... your absurd lie that "legal murder" is not a "legal
concept." And so many others. All in all... you're about as evil a
murderer lover as I've seen here. Except for Desmond, of course, who
reigns as the undisputed quintessential murderer lover of AADP. You'll
never catch him, euro... no sense even trying. You'll ALWAYS be #2.
PV
>Euro
A Planet Visitor
>Well, after a search on Google (theme: "PV murderer lover"), it appears
>that, in the last two years, PV called "murderer lover" the following
>persons:
>
>- Desmond, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=KSBD8.478107%24K52.78789485%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=Nzcf9.197282%24Rx4.2155229%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=QMVL8.90927%24ec1.1951930%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=s1reov4c7ej89mm3b79fs4qmabj97ra9bv%404ax.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=su37avkg9rn7bnn18rlub297gilr6cnfpf%404ax.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=BWkD9.260635%24r7.4795369%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
Rather axiomatic, that Desmond is a murderer-lover. The greatest that
AADP has ever seen. Shit... he's admitted a few times that he'd like to
be a murderer... if his victim was a retentionist.
>and plenty of other occurences
>
>- Peter Morris, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=dJgI9.304481%24fa.6037848%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=q0_E9.302055%24r7.5423214%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
www.google.com/groups?&selm=0f4pivgpbce42gre6ro1vs0od5jmkjilu0%404ax.com
>
Given that Peter Morris admitted that he believes murderers DESERVE to
be murdered, it's obvious that he is a murderer-lover. He obviously LOVES
the murderer who murders a murderer. While I contend NO ONE DESERVES
TO BE MURDERED.
>- JPB, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=8rd2nvk65ko1bbtndqhmv5orqbd3imkt8n%404ax.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=fb6smvko1eldteta86bsul4elsruki8799%404ax.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=1l78dvkmo5ll91hpo8rbajgtvr7m4ueadk%404ax.com
>
Of course HE is a murderer lover. Jesus, euro... he's in LOVE with the 'Great White
Whale.' See...
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
>- Spike, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=sovp9vogqo39rc7dqfm5hb4f750l4b1s2p%404ax.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=1pgbavg38q162rhthqpu2f2kcf8vaoa0pe%404ax.com
>(in that one, Spike was called "worse than a murderer lover", but it is true
>that PV also suggested he was a zoophile)
No... that was YOU suggesting he was... and it was rather disgusting of you
to do so... since so many zoophiles are caring humans, who are opponents of
cruelty to animals... but I presume you are not an opponent of cruelty to animals,
since you felt the word was an insult. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/OED%20Online%20-%20zoophile.htm
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=rk34avkg9jga3hqlq8eib9f1ibufl8jkf3%404ax.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=AiTsa.57465%24My6.1029896%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
Spike was not only a murderer-lover, but admitted to wanting to BE a murderer.
To murder ME. To 'put me down.' See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bqhoavcjql19pie9fuce1rh1hnlptpbtvi%404ax.com
His words in this one -- "you need putting down you sick fuck."
>- Fitzherbert
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=a448av4r0navn1k0j034ld6luim7vehopu%404ax.com
>(didn't see any others - curious huh? But PV prefers to call you a racist
>apparently)
>
Another one who wished to murder ME. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0304300639.5cfabaf4%40posting.google.com
His words to me -- "stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming
in the Erewash Canal with all the other old boots."
>- Jane (yes, PV stooped _that_ low)
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=Q7Dh8.63494%24TV4.10855707%40typhoon.tampabay.rr
>.com
>
Jane, was 'enigmacat,' a female abolitionist who corresponded with
murderers on DR. Claiming she was "fond' of one of them, and admitted
to 'dating' a man who had murdered his stepfather and was serving L wop.
Obviously an admitted murderer-lover. Not a very stable or non-violent
background. In a dialog with John Rennie about guns, she remarked --
"Oh and seeing that PV hasn't been run off the rails as of yet. Gimme a piece
already!! Yes, the bitch is back and i take no prisoners." See ---
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3d77cf24.13619191%40news.lon.imag.net
Another 'abolitionist' who wanted to MURDER me. In case you are
unfamiliar with slang,' the 'piece' she is speaking of is a gun... with which to
murder me.
>- Brett, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=gI%250a.25038%24AQ3.436517%40twister.tampabay.rr
>.com
>
LOL. Given that "Brett" presumed that a murderer had a "right" to murder a child,
I'm quite sure that he is a murderer-lover. But then again... I'm sure you agree
that a murderer has a 'right' to murder a child.
>- Earl, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=cQ7F5.72253%24O95.5700326%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.
>com
>
Clearly, the entire body of his posting history demands that he be seen as a murderer
lover. In fact, the only humans that he does NOT attack are MURDERERS. Thus,
we need to look to the reason he does so, since he never admits to the existence
of a victim... just as you never admit to that existence.
>- Juergen, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=s2sT6.402355%24o9.63603435%40typhoon.tampabay.rr
>.com
>(notice this admirable hypocritical way of insulting without insulting,
>while insulting anyway: "I hate to use the term 'murderer lover,' because I
>don't REALLY believe you are." - PV didn't _really_ believe, but he wrote it
>anyway and maybe he just believed it after all).
>
And maybe you're a lunatic, for claiming that my saying "I don't REALLY
believe you are," can be parsed into "I REALLY believe you are."
But let's be clear..there is substantial evidence in the greater body of Jürgen's
posts, which suggest such affection for murderers, again to the exclusion of any
consideration of the victims, that the term murderer-lover, rather does come to
mind. In fact... he has expressed the word "PITY" which is close to affection...
which is close to love... for EVERY murderer. According to him... we must
'pity' the murderer... and the murderer's family... but forget the victim... and the
victim's family.
>Fortunately, PV didn't always have such scruples: see
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=HCOS7.111839%24Ga5.16823320%40typhoon.tampabay.r
>r.com
>
Yes... it took me six months (if you look at the dates between the posts) to
determine that Jürgen was, in fact, a murderer lover, since in the intervening
six months he had made not a single mention of a victim... and all he had
done was WHINE about those murderers he loves.
>- Cardinal Lustiger (while he thought Lustiger was a respectable "born
>Jew"), see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=6n4eov0pamemabgiplltggjd4ihfu11f1i%404ax.com
>
Oh... HE'S MOST CERTAINLY A MURDERER LOVER. Big time. That's
why YOU find him to possess "great moral qualities." As you undoubtedly
find EACH of the murderer lovers I have mentioned above to possess.
Don't you, euro? Don't you find EVERY ONE OF THEM... to possess
"great moral qualities"? Even those who stated they wished to MURDER
ME.
>- Dirtdog, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=_7bI8.63121%24YI5.999369%40twister.tampabay.rr.c
>om
Ah... good ol' dirt. Who really gives a shit that he's a murderer lover. Everyone
knows his opinions only mean shit.
>(no more links???)
>
>- And... me, see:
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=b9heovcjdqelvukr8cgtmqf1i2r41bmg6e%404ax.com
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=3ldgcvk5k6872irclq2d49i2ksiejfgsmu%404ax.com
>(among others...)
>
Many others... all fully deserved. Without a doubt, you are #2 only to Desmond,
who has professed that he would be a murderer before Theodore Frank would be
a murderer... which is an impossible 'murderer-lover' expression to top. he
LOVES Theodore Frank MORE than he loves himself.
Now... let's look at your words --
1) You have claimed that there is no gradation between murderers and innocent
slaves -- See -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetnews.com
And this is again proven by your refusal to choose between saving ALL
murderers from the DP, and abolishing the DP or saving ALL innocent slaves from
slavery and abolishing slavery. You found those choices to be EXACTLY the
same... and thus... as Buridan's ass... you PERMITTED BOTH murderers to be
executed AND slaves to remain in slavery... because of YOUR immoral inability
in finding no difference between murderers and innocent slaves. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7bdcb795c96cae1ec88d8d6ea691de18%40news.meganetnews.com
2) You DEFENDED Desmond's comment...which LAUGHED at the murder
of more than a dozen human being. Defended it TOTALLY. Even EXPANDING
on the thought that someone could describe the murder of more than a dozen human
beings in SUCH A CONTEXT of 'population control.' See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dccefe1b2a9c20dd7479a9ef7923a3c9%40news.meganetnews.com
3) You have stated there is no reason to 'separate' murderers from non-murderers
when hoping to make progress for our species -- in your words -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and murderers
(the evil ones)." Pardon me, if I believe we don't make much 'progress' as a species
if we find murderers and non murderers as NO DIFFERENT from each other. I
believe the words 'good' and 'evil' have the opposite meaning thus require 180
degrees of separation between them. But as you are a murderer lover... I can
see you find no such separation necessary. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
4) You have claimed that John Wayne Gacy, and all murderers have the
same 'human rights' in every respect as innocent slaves and non murderers.
Given that FREEDOM is the essential human right that is taken away
from innocent slaves... then unless you would argue that innocent slaves do
NOT have a 'human right' to FREEDOM, you are arguing that Gacy and all
murderers ALSO have a 'human right' to that SAME FREEDOM.
See items 3) and 5) in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mv4eovc41pif2r8lgn9fpt5nmm9mu9hetu%404ax.com
5) You have called the proposed elevation of a MURDERER to a position
regarded as "Blessed" by a Catholic Cardinal prelate to be a MORAL act.
An act that would allow that murderer to be VENERATED, honored as
SACRED, by the followers of that church. I suppose you'll be first in
line to 'light a candle' for that murderer if it comes about. Imagine... a
murderer... raised to being "Blessed" and the last step to possible Sainthood...
being considered a MORAL decision. Tell me that doesn't express LOVE
for that murderer? Tell me that isn't an INSULT to every victim of murder.
See your fawning over that Catholic Cardinal in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
6) You have claimed it is 'irrelevant' to compare one state-permitted act
which results in the death of 40,000 innocent humans each year, with another
state-permitted act which results in the death of about 35 proven murderers
each year. Arguing that those murderers are more important than those
40,000 innocent humans, and thus are an "irrelevant comparison." Yet
the state could prevent BOTH those 40,000 innocent human deaths,
and those 35 proven murderer deaths, if the state so wished -- See
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=d0070ee037929d85241ce6fa8625ed1a%40news.meganetnews.com
Plus, there are so many instances of you providing out and out LIES. Your
lie as to the ICCPR... your absurd lie that "legal murder" is not a "legal
concept." And so many others. All in all... you're about as evil a
murderer lover as I've seen here. Except for Desmond, of course, who
reigns as the undisputed quintessential murderer lover of AADP for all
time. A title he is rather proud of, in fact.
>------------------------------------------------
>
>Well, in conclusion of this empirical study, the definition of a murderer
>lover on this newsgroup is not "someone who loves murderers", but "someone
>who wrote, or did something PV doesn't agree with".
>
No... it's someone who wrote something that demonstrates to me they
LOVE MURDERERS. To the absolute exclusion of even considering
victims as ever existing, much less no longer existing. The definition of
a murderer lover is rather simple... it is someone who has demonstrated
through their words here... that they LOVE murderers. In fact, in EVERY
instance where someone claims a 'murderer is also a victim,' this is absolute
confirmation that such a poster does not actually consider a murderer as
having taken a human life, and sees that murderers as being VICTIMIZED.
Most murderers may well not deserve the DP... but I'll be damned if I would
accept that ANY murderer can be seen as a VICTIM, given that they committed
that murder using their 'free will.'
>Of course, with his maniac attitudes, PV tried to create a hierarchy by
>"numbering" murderer-lovers. He was bluntly disapproved by St George
>(www.google.com/groups?&selm=aaujef%24o3s%241%40knossos.btinternet.com ).
>
LOL.. I defy anyone to read that post, and come away with what euro
presumes is meant. In fact, I had called Desmond - Murderer Lover #1
for some time... since he proved himself to be such... over and over. You'll
NEVER catch him, euro... no matter how hard you try. You'll ALWAYS
be #2. Does that bother you... that's he's MORE of a murderer lover
than you?
>This is how PV has managed to turn news:alt.activism.death-penalty into a
>group that is heavily polluted by his vulgarity, instead of discussing the
>question of the abolition of death penalty.
>
Perhaps you should count the number of times that your #1 MESSIAH (just
a bit ahead of your #2 MESSIAH... the murderer loving Cardinal), has
used the term "deathies" to refer to ALL retentionists... not bothering to
be specific, as I've always been. Clearly... I do NOT believe that all
abolitionists are murderer-lovers... FAR FROM IT. Many of their arguments,
both moral and pragmatic have a great deal of meaning and force to them.
And that is what makes me far, far morally, and intellectually superior to
both Desmond and you... since neither of you believe that ANY arguments
in favor of the DP have any meaning or force to them.
But SPECIFICALLY... the names that I've mentioned are no better than
piles of dog shit in having any value in the argument of the DP. And you
are the 2nd biggest dog turd of all. The names that you've referred do a
DISSERVICE to abolition, by refusing to consider alternative arguments.
PV
>Euro
>---------------------------
>Notes:
>
>I must however stress that PV made some attempts to appear more respectable
>than he actually is.
>
As opposed to you having NEVER made any attempts to appear respectable
in ANY of your posts.
>"Obviously, the use of 'murderer lover,' disgusts me".
>PV,
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=x9m0a.23163%24QQ4.210207%40twister.tampabay.rr.c
>om
>
Yes... it does. It is not an easy 'handle' to attach to anyone. Just as
'racist' and 'anti-Semite,' are not easy 'handles' to attach to anyone.
But even worse, would be to ignore the corruption of the human
spirit that I see within those who fully deserve those 'handles' in
my opinion. As in all things within the human response system, the
word 'absolute' has no meaning. Thus, when I call someone a
murderer-lover, or a racist, or an anti-Semite, I base doing so on
what I have SEEN in their words, since I have no knowledge of
anything other than their words here.
>(we're glad to see how easily PV can jump over what disgusts him)
>
It is never easy for me to jump over what disgusts me. Although
like dog shit... I recognize it is there... but try to avoid getting any
on me. While you seem to wallow in it.
>"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
>If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
>perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
>They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
>equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
>make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
>PV,
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.r
>r.com
>
Desmond was referring to a GENERALIZED use of "deathies" applied
'to ALL retentionists, which Desmond always does in respect to ALL
retentionists... while if you read my words, I NEVER have accused all
abolitionists as being murderer lovers... FAR FROM IT..in fact. But
there are most certainly murderer lovers posting to this group. And you
are still #2.
>(so remember that each time PV uses this word, he is vile and insane.
Only if I were to refer to ALL abolitionists as such. And you'll wait until
hell freezes over before that happens, since there are a number of sensible
and reasonable abolitionists posting here. They have been drowned out
by those such as you, and have often complained about being drowned
out by abolitionists they find detract from a rational argument... In respect
to the #1 murderer lover... see --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_10.html
> I am
>glad to proclaim that PV has been insane and vile for exactly 13 pages of
>posts found on Google)
>
Not bad... only 13 out of 31,400. While you've been a murderer lover
in 1,240 out of 1,240. Of course, I believe you posted under another
handle before... so your insane and vile posts may actually be higher.
>"You're the only 'murderer-lover' here, desipoo".
>Written in January 2003 by PV
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=WVvU9.73756%24Sa3.1736700%40twister.tampabay.rr.
>com
>
LOL...Of course, the usual distorted lie from you... because some troll named
"fred" implied that I would 'support' the continued murders committed by
Brisbon, and Desmond chimed in his 'agreement.' Obviously, I was referring
to Desmond being the only murderer-lover between he and I.
>(that was my usual rubric "welcome to PV's fabulous world, the world where
>everything is true and its contrary as well)
Thanks for providing me the opportunity to again prove you are a murderer-lover.
But you'll NEVER catch Desmond. He is unbeatable... as a murderer lover.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr>
>??????:3f8c48c9$0$7589$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net...
>>
>>
>> Dans l'article <1LVib.261$M04.3...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
>> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:f7cbd38281e52eb3...@news.meganetnews.com...
>> >> Well, after a search on Google (theme: "PV murderer lover"), it appears
>> >> that, in the last two years, PV called "murderer lover" the following
>> >> persons:
>> >
>> > He didn't include me. Very sensible.
>>
>> Although not mentioned on Euro's list, I think I have been called a
>murderer
>> lover. Although I may have merely been lumped with Earl.
>>
>> Donna Evleth
>
>Welcome to the club, Donna, and sorry for having confused you with Earl ;-)
>
No problem... some here have confused you with Desmond... but he's
still the #1 murderer lover in AADP.
>Sorry to see that PV has also been "vile and insane" (to borrow his own
>words) in an exchange with you. This newsgroup deserves better.
>
Actually... Donna has called Desmond OBSCENE. For the same post that
YOU applauded Desmond for posting when he LAUGHED at the murder
of more than a dozen innocent human beings. See your 'appreciation' for
Desmond's laughter at --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dccefe1b2a9c20dd7479a9ef7923a3c9%40news.meganetnews.com
Perhaps you can explain to Donna why YOU believe that CALLING the murder
of more than a dozen innocent humans beings -- 'population control in Indonesia'
is seen by YOU as a natural way to feel about such murders.
As Donna found it to be... I agree that the most appropriate word to describe it...
was OBSCENE.
PV
>Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:5o74pvk38kn7ntli8...@4ax.com...
(snipping 6K of PV's rants)
Poor PV... He claims he is the one who exposes others to light, but
obviously doesn't like to be exposed himself.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:u0a4pvk87ja4ces9p...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:07:22 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(...)
> >
> >Welcome to the club, Donna, and sorry for having confused you with Earl
;-)
> >
> No problem... some here have confused you with Desmond... but he's
> still the #1 murderer lover in AADP.
I trust that was someone who tends to often "speak metaphorically". Calling
Donna a "murderer lover" is nothing you should be proud of anyway.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:bs74pvsn4p6jo5v0b...@4ax.com...
(snipping 19K of crap in which PV justifies himself, of course with plenty
of lies)
Repeating my conclusion:
"Obviously, the use of 'murderer lover,' disgusts me".
PV,
www.google.com/groups?&selm=x9m0a.23163%24QQ4.210207%40twister.tampabay.rr.c
om
(we're glad to see how easily PV can jump over what disgusts him)
"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
PV,
www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.r
r.com
(so remember that each time PV uses this word, he is vile and insane. I am
glad to proclaim that PV has been insane and vile for exactly 13 pages of
posts found on Google)
"You're the only 'murderer-lover' here, desipoo".
Written in January 2003 by PV
www.google.com/groups?&selm=WVvU9.73756%24Sa3.1736700%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
(that was my usual rubric "welcome to PV's fabulous world, the world where
everything is true and its contrary as well)
------------------------------------------------------------
We're waiting for PV to present apologies for having been "vile and insane"
with more than 10 regular posters over the past two years.
Euro
Clown
>
> >- Juergen, see:
> >
> >www.google.com/groups?&selm=s2sT6.402355%24o9.63603435%40typhoon.tampabay.rr
> >.com
>
> >(notice this admirable hypocritical way of insulting without insulting,
> >while insulting anyway: "I hate to use the term 'murderer lover,' because I
> >don't REALLY believe you are." - PV didn't _really_ believe, but he wrote it
> >anyway and maybe he just believed it after all).
> >
> And maybe you're a lunatic, for claiming that my saying "I don't REALLY
> believe you are," can be parsed into "I REALLY believe you are."
>
> But let's be clear..there is substantial evidence in the greater body of Jürgen's
> posts, which suggest such affection for murderers, again to the exclusion of any
> consideration of the victims, that the term murderer-lover, rather does come to
> mind. In fact... he has expressed the word "PITY" which is close to affection...
> which is close to love... for EVERY murderer. According to him... we must
> 'pity' the murderer... and the murderer's family... but forget the victim... and the
> victim's family.
>
> >Fortunately, PV didn't always have such scruples: see
> >www.google.com/groups?&selm=HCOS7.111839%24Ga5.16823320%40typhoon.tampabay.r
> >r.com
> >
> Yes... it took me six months (if you look at the dates between the posts) to
> determine that Jürgen was, in fact, a murderer lover, since in the intervening
> six months he had made not a single mention of a victim... and all he had
> done was WHINE about those murderers he loves.
>
murder victim in the sentencing phase of any murder trial. I came to the
conclusion that aPV uses any murder victim as a general justification of
executions. Whenever he's confronted with particular cases when clear and
considerable mitigating circumstances had been bluntly ignored he goes
swiftly into victim-ignorance-accusations against his opponent, rather
than to examine the case and to analyze the reasons why lots of people
are executed whilst they did not bear a guilt of greater a gravity than
thousands of offenders sentenced to more lenient penalties than death.
Klaun
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:46:10 GMT, dans l'article <f7cbd38281e52eb3...@news.meganetnews.com>, Euro <vs...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
>> Well, after a search on Google (theme: "PV murderer lover"), it appears
>> that, in the last two years, PV called "murderer lover" the following
>> persons:
>
>{ snip masterful appraisal of FuckWit's lying }
>
How could an opinion be a lie? Lies are those that YOU are the expert
at... But it's now obvious that they are all you have left.
>Don't worry about it, Euro: anyone who thrashes FuckWit's 'ass' (sic) is
>called 'a liar', or 'a racist', or 'a monster', or 'mental', or 'a pedantic
>[sic]', or ... and the list goes on.
>
SLURP... SLURP... SLURP.
Desmond a liar -- Proven.
Desmond a racist -- Proven
Desmond a monster -- Proven
Desmond a mental case -- Proven
Desmond a pedant -- Proven
Desmond a murderer lover -- Oh yes... proven...proven... proven.
Desmond to be pitied -- It appears that this is all that is left to express for him.
Gentle reader... I have shed my hate for Desmond... given his mental decline
now demonstrated by wishing to murder all retentionists... I can only hold
pity for him. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
PV
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond 'I want to murder abolitionists' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:43:56 +0100, dans l'article <1LVib.261$M04.3...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, j.rennie1 <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a dit ...
>
>>> Well, after a search on Google (theme: "PV murderer lover"), it appears
>>> that, in the last two years, PV called "murderer lover" the following
>>> persons:
>
>> He didn't include me. Very sensible.
>
>Try disagreeing with him.
>
LOL... I believe there is only one instance where John and I have ever
agreed... and that is the use of the Atomic Bomb to end WW II. Although
when he mildly disagreed with you... you called him a 'deathie,' and have
continued to insult him. While he had a PERSONAL REASON for
killfiling you. Given your lust for 'barely legal' females... I wonder what
that PERSONAL REASON could possibly be? -- See -
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_173.html
Gentle reader... I have shed my hate for Desmond... given his mental decline
now demonstrated by wishing to murder all retentionists... I can only hold
pity for him. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
PV
>--
>Desmond 'I want to murder retentionists' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:48:22 -0400, dans l'article <bmhct6$bfv$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>, danh <da...@lexisnexis.com> a dit ...
>
>>> Many of us humanists are less accepting that Jesus, we don`t
>>> go the whole love route but we do resist hate consuming us.
>>>
>>> PV has not yet attained this particular state of grace.
>
>> Neither have some abolitionists.
>
>Au contraire. The Light Dwellers are love and compassion incarnate. One
>need only look at us, to witness the pale, heavenly light that shines from
>within. Indeed, the Buddha was the first Abolitionist.
>
>>> Therefore, we should pity him.
>
>> Should to abolitionists also be pitied?
>
>For having to put up with the human garbage that are deathies, yes.
>
Gentle reader... In the past, I would have grown angry, at Desmond's
comment. But I have shed my hate for Desmond... given his mental decline
now demonstrated by wishing to murder all retentionists... I can only hold
pity for him. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
PV
>--
>Desmond 'I want to murder all retentionists' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:54:46 -0400, dans l'article <bmhgpm$nvc$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>, danh <da...@lexisnexis.com> a dit ...
>
>>> >> Many of us humanists are less accepting that Jesus, we don`t
>>> >> go the whole love route but we do resist hate consuming us.
>>> >>
>>> >> PV has not yet attained this particular state of grace.
>
>>> > Neither have some abolitionists.
>
>>> Au contraire. The Light Dwellers are love and compassion incarnate. One
>>> need only look at us, to witness the pale, heavenly light that shines from
>>> within.
>
>> Sorry Desmond, I can't stomach this any further. This is the entire text of
>> the email you sent me yesterday, subject: The Scum.
>>
>> "I hate them, Dan.
>> Any chance to destroy the fuckers, I'll take it.
>
>I was (naturally) 'speaking metaphorically' [1], Dan,
Whether you intend to 'excuse' your stated DESIRE to murder
all retentionists, calling it something else, is rather sickening, since
you certainly do not have the ability to ACT on your words, given
the medium of Usenet. Thus, the presumption must be that IF
you COULD ACT on those words... YOU WOULD! You may
not be a TRUE murderer... but the lust to murder is clearly in
your obscene WORDS... and your wicked MIND... and your black
HEART... and your corrupt SOUL. This is just too clear.... in so
many of your comments... see --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
Plus your exposure of the real name of a poster, which most certainly
had a PURPOSE behind it... and that PURPOSE can only be seen
to HARM that poster. Given that you cannot do so in this medium...
you were HOPING that someone would ACT on your exposure
of that poster.
But all of that... only makes me now pity you.
> but that besides,
>Golden Rule N°1 on Usenet is that one never quotes the content of private
>e-mails, on a Usenet group. I think the only time this has happened was
>when Scooter-Boy [2] quoted one of my e-mails, but then as he's human
>garbage, that doesn't count. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
>> It takes a lot to disgust me, but the lies, deceptions, personal
>> invective and lack of discussion has done it. There's no point in
>> attempting communication further with anyone on this ng. Good bye.
>
>Another one driven away by FuckWit and his incessant abuse of all who dare
>to disagree with him. Sad. :-(
>
What is sad is your use of lies... constantly. This one about as transparent
as can be... since Dan referred to YOUR POST specifically, and did not
mention me at all, in his disgust with you, causing him to leave the group.
I hope he reconsiders. But he is not the first, nor the last poster you will
chase away with your evil insults. All the more reason to pity you.
Gentle reader... I have shed my hate for Desmond... given his mental decline
now demonstrated by wishing to murder all retentionists... I can only hold
pity for him. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
PV
>[1] *snigger*
>[2] url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/scooter-boy.jpg
A picture of Desmond 'complaining' to his spouse about his displeasure
with France voting with the rest of the Security Council on a U.S.
sponsored resolution.
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_complains.jpg
ho ho ho.
PV
>--
>Desmond 'I want to murder all abolitionists' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f7cbd38281e52eb3...@news.meganetnews.com...
>> Well, after a search on Google (theme: "PV murderer lover"), it appears
>> that, in the last two years, PV called "murderer lover" the following
>> persons:
>
>He didn't include me. Very sensible.
>
Nothing to do with being 'sensible.' Only to do with being realistic.
I only characterize those as murderer-lovers, who have demonstrated
a 'love for murderers.'
Desmond -- No question about him...I can provide hundreds of his
comments that demonstrate that fact.
euro -- No question about him... he finds no gradation between murderers
and innocent slaves. He has claimed it is 'moral' to elevate a murderer to
possible sainthood. He has claimed he cannot 'separate' murderers and
non-murderers. Chee... proven murderer lover.
JPB -- See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
No question at all that he is in love with a particular murderer. And has
expressed some strong affection for the murderer Saddam remaining in
power.
Peter Morris -- His words -- "Executing hundreds of criminals to save the
lives of a small number of other criminals does not make sense, to me."
Obviously, he has little regard for murders COMMITTED... but great
regard for MURDERERS.
the former spike -- Given that he threatened ME with murder... that's
rather axiomatic that he is a murderer lover -- his words -- ""you need
putting down you sick fuck."
Ol' Racist Nev -- Another one for which there is no question... since
he also threatened me with being murdered --- his words -- ""stay the
fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in the Erewash
Canal with all the other old boots."
Jane (enigmacat) -- Another one who threatened me with murder... plus
she was an ADMITTED murderer-lover, in many posts admitting her
affection in a personal sense with murderers on DR. You must
remember her threat to murder me, since it was in a post to you,
regarding 'access to guns,' in which she wrote to you about me --
""Oh and seeing that PV hasn't been run off the rails as of yet. Gimme a
piece already!! Yes, the bitch is back and i take no prisoners."
Brett (shit.. I hardly even remember him... I don't think he posted more
than a few times). He argued in the post in which I called him a
murderer-lover, that a murderer had a 'right' to murder a child.
Earl -- As I told Donna... I will never back away one inch from my
opinion that he is a murderer-lover. In so many of his disgusting
expressions of affection for murderers, and never a word for the
victim.
Jürgen -- Another one for which there is no question. I have never
seen him express anything but 'pity,' FOR murderers, and 'brutalization'
OF murderers. He has NEVER had a single negative thing to say
about a murderer, unless it was in the most irrelevant of passing terms,
which was followed by a hysterical raving condemnation of how
that murderer was mistreated by society
Cardinal Lustiger -- Again... no question. He speaks of making a
murderer "BLESSED" in the RC Church, while ignoring every other
person who has done good, and not murdered. Calling him a
murderer-lover is one of the easier things I've done.
dirtdog -- shit... he hates HUMANS. Yet seems to find some
method to divorce murderers from those he hates.... thus, the
opposite of hate is love. Anyway... as far as dirtdog is concerned...
no one actually cares... because he has no meaning here... being
simply a troll.
I believe that about covers it... so I find nothing to retract at all. In
my opinion... based on what I've offered, I find it reasonable to
hold an opinion that the posters mentioned hold an affection for
murderers which seems to me to be irrational... and thus must be
based on some basic emotion. And the only emotion I can come
up with is "LOVE." What would anyone expect me to say --
"Desmond is a 'murderer-liker"?
And finally, I believe I can show in any of the cases, that the
dialog had already good into the shitter, and no longer represented
any reasonable argument from the one that I had characterized as
a 'murderer-lover.'
PV
Euro
"Clown" <K.J.H...@t-online.de>
??????:MPG.19fce5c31...@news.t-online.de...
>
(snipped)
> Indeed aPV and myself discussed time and again about how to evaluate a
> murder victim in the sentencing phase of any murder trial. I came to the
> conclusion that aPV uses any murder victim as a general justification of
> executions. Whenever he's confronted with particular cases when clear and
> considerable mitigating circumstances had been bluntly ignored he goes
> swiftly into victim-ignorance-accusations against his opponent, rather
> than to examine the case and to analyze the reasons why lots of people
> are executed whilst they did not bear a guilt of greater a gravity than
> thousands of offenders sentenced to more lenient penalties than death.
>
> Klaun
It is all too sad to see that PV is adopting here the same method Sharp
used: instrumentalization of the victims' families' sorrow to justify a
punishment, as if punishments were to provide victims' families with a kind
of revenge.
Actually, I believe that those who adopt this method couldn't care less
about victims' families. They're just an easy argument to bring once in a
while, in order to dodge other arguments.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:flb6pvo4gj6ajh1gt...@4ax.com...
(snipping a long self-justification for PV calling some 12 regular posters,
plus a cardinal, "murderer lovers")
How about those lines, that you posted to John, to explain that the words
"murderer lover" and "deathie" were _equally_ "vile and insane"? Have you
realized that most of those you called "murderer lovers" never used the term
"deathie"? Even against you?
Maybe we're just too good for you, after all.
Euro
---------------------
PV: "Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.r
r.com
A Planet Visitor
That's the problem, Jürgen... you see those who murder as bearing NO
guilt, if you happen to see another who murdered who was not executed.
But that's wrong-headed to me, since ALL murderers bear the guilt of
having murdered. But rather than execute them ALL, an expression of
mercy is necessary for a great majority of them. The gravity of MURDER
is EQUAL in all cases, since every murder takes the life of another.. and
each life taken is of equal value. I have no problem with the thousands
of murderers who are sentenced to penalties other than the DP... but
apparently you do. In reality, what you are arguing is that we should
extend mercy to ALL murderers, because we did not extend it to some
who were executed, while having done so for others who committed
murders you see as worse than those who were executed.
But I disagree with that argument. You simply cannot use those who
were NOT executed as an excuse to not execute ANY murderer.
Because another could argue that the solution is the opposite of
what you propose, if 'equity' if demanded. That opposite being
execute EVERY murderer. That certainly would provide the
'equity' you expect... but the outcome would be absolutely unacceptable
to me, in a moral sense. Thus, all we can do is search for a better
'equity' knowing that we will always be limited in our inability to
be 'perfect' in providing such 'equity.'
I agree that we execute far too many murderers... but your idea is to
presume that ALL murderers WIN... and EVERY murderer can commit
as many murders as they possibly can... in as many instances as they
possibly can... and NEVER lose this imaginary 'right' to their own life.
I simply cannot accept that in my subjective moral framework. Nor
do I believe it would actually save INNOCENT lives. It may save
MURDERERS lives, but I am more concerned with INNOCENT
lives.
Tell me... under what conditions would you support the use of the DP in
Germany? In the U.S.? I am certain that you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE
for Man to correctly identify to YOUR satisfaction what murderers should
and should not be executed... so YOU will decide for everyone that NO
MURDERER should be executed. You and I both know that our opinions
will never come to any 'meeting of the minds' in even the slightest
agreement about total abolition of the DP.
PV
>Klaun
A Planet Visitor
wrote:
>le Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:14:16 GMT, dans l'article <hii1pvk5ms0q28u6t...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>"I hate them, Dan.
>>>Any chance to destroy the fuckers, I'll take it.
>
>> Oh MY GOD!! Further... ABSOLUTE... confirmation... that Desmond
>> actually intends to commit PHYSICAL MURDER if he has "any chance."
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!
>
You've ALWAYS LAUGHED at murder. Rather PROVEN in --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_100.html
A reference to a post which Donna found your laughing at murder to
be OBSCENE.
>'PHYSICAL [sic] MURDER [sic]', as distinct from 'NON[sic]-PHYSICAL [sic]
>MURDER [sic]', one presumes ..?
>
Given that you CANNOT commit PHYSICAL MURDER here in AADP...
that must trouble you greatly. Especially since you provided the 'real
name, address and phone number,' hoping that another of your evil little
goblins might do 'the dirty work for you.' But there is a great body of
proof that IF YOU COULD... YOU WOULD commit murder... as easily
as you would murder MLK... if you could do so yet again. The proof of
your perverted DESIRES to commit PHYSICAL MURDER, limited
ONLY by the fact you CANNOT DO SO... thus it remains NON-PHYSICAL
MURDER. Murder committed in your mind... and your black soul. See
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
Readers can see Desmond prove he is a murderer-lover, by stating
emphatically that the murderer is of more value to him than the
victim of that murderer --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_133.html
Readers can see Desmond express his desire to murder retentionists --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_150.html
Readers can see Desmond ADMIT that he would murder more
readily than Theodore Frank would --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_4.html
Readers can see Desmond LAUGH at murder --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_100.html
Readers can see Desmond FIGHT to save a racist murderer --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_71.html
>*chortle*
>
>English really isn't your strong suit, is it ??
>
Racism and desires to murder are your strong suit, Desmond.
>Tell us about those 'non-man-made religions', FuckWit ... or about 'barely
>legal female[s]' ...
>
>*snigger*
>
>{ snip various invocations of FuckWit Patented Gimmick (TM) N° 166, coupled
> with a typical acceptance of hearsay, in a desperate attempt to score one
> point, oh 'Good' (sic), just one 'portentious' (sic) point, 'alright'
> (sic) !!
>}
>
>url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/166.html
Readers can see Desmond BEG the group to _vote_ for his racism --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_166.html
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.htm
PV
>--
>Desmond "The murderer lover" Coughlan
Clown
>
> >Whenever he's confronted with particular cases when clear and
> >considerable mitigating circumstances had been bluntly ignored he goes
> >swiftly into victim-ignorance-accusations against his opponent, rather
> >than to examine the case and to analyze the reasons why lots of people
> >are executed whilst they did not bear a guilt of greater a gravity than
> >thousands of offenders sentenced to more lenient penalties than death.
> >
> That's the problem, Jürgen... you see those who murder as bearing NO
> guilt, if you happen to see another who murdered who was not executed.
Not at all. I happen to see a harsh prison term not as an excuse for
murder or a denial of guilt.
> .... The gravity of MURDER
> is EQUAL in all cases, since every murder takes the life of another.. and
> each life taken is of equal value. I have no problem with the thousands
> of murderers who are sentenced to penalties other than the DP...
It is a question of consistency, simply. It is you who wants to make a
difference who guilty 'deserves' and who 'not deserves' the DP. Then you
have to put reasonable criteria for this distinction.
> In reality, what you are arguing is that we should
> extend mercy to ALL murderers, because we did not extend it to some
> who were executed, while having done so for others who committed
> murders you see as worse than those who were executed.
>
> But I disagree with that argument. You simply cannot use those who
> were NOT executed as an excuse to not execute ANY murderer.
I refer to equity before the law, and since the US present most arbitrary
death sentences and executions I establish therein most grave an
injustice.
> Because another could argue that the solution is the opposite of
> what you propose, if 'equity' if demanded. That opposite being
> execute EVERY murderer. That certainly would provide the
> 'equity' you expect... but the outcome would be absolutely unacceptable
> to me, in a moral sense.
And? There are arguments which do not work symmetrically. I can not see
why the opposite to abolition, i.e. the execution of all murderers as an
IYO unacceptable imagination, should have impact on the establishment
that the DP can not be administered without leading to gravely unequal
treatment of most similarly guilty people.
> Tell me... under what conditions would you support the use of the DP in
> Germany? In the U.S.? I am certain that you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE
> for Man to correctly identify to YOUR satisfaction what murderers should
> and should not be executed... so YOU will decide for everyone that NO
> MURDERER should be executed.
I decide nothing. I discuss. And I see that the US do make not even an
ATTEMPT to come to a meaningful selection of candidates for the DP.
K.
A Planet Visitor
Rubbish... plain and simple. You reserve your PITY for no one other than
the murderer. When have you EVER spoken of the victim, except in the
most trivial of terms... never showing any PITY for that victim? Where was
your mention of pity for the VICTIMS in the murders committed by John
Wayne Gacy of more than 30 children? All you spoke of was HIS 'human
rights.' The only pity I've EVER seen you express is for MURDERERS.
John Wayne Gacy, and Fesch, whom you believe it is moral to consider
BLESSED by the RC Church, and thus should be venerated by millions.
PV
>Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:pu6cpvcgfollcm4vp...@4ax.com...
I don't see how expressing concern for the human rights of a murderer means
showing pity for them. Besides, victims do actually deserve pity and
compassion, and that in no way encompasses murderers being executed.
Point hence irrelevant.
Euro
JIGSAW1695
>From: "Euro" vs...@hotmail.com
>Date: 10/22/2003 10:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <466c5389edf8f270...@news.meganetnews.com>
** A lot snipped **
>I don't see how expressing concern for the human rights of a murderer means
>showing pity for them. Besides, victims do actually deserve pity and
>compassion, and that in no way encompasses murderers being executed.
>
>Point hence irrelevant.
>
>Euro
===============================
Speaking of a point Euro, you have missed it.
The issue is the commission of a crime and the subsequent punishment for the
person who committed that crime.
There are no statutes in law that require compassion and pity. Maybe you feel
that there should be, but you are wrong. That does not mean that such feelings
do not exist with the jurors and the court and that such feelings influence
those involved.
Possession and Use of marijuana usually results in a very minor punishment,
usually a small fine and a few months probation. The punishment gets harsher if
the law violation continues, but even then there is a limit.
The same with auto theft. The first offense is usually punished with a
relatively light sentence. Subsequent violations result sometimes result in
longer sentences.
Armed Robbery is treated in a different light because of the potential danger
to the victim. The first offence will merit a minimum of five years.
Some types of murders, depending on the circumstances, degree of the crime and
the evidence presented merit ten years to life.
Other types of murderers merit the death penalty based on the aforesaid
circumstances and evidence.
The ruling of guilt or innocence is passed
On the findings of the jury. Once found guilty, the punishment the convicted
person is awarded is based on the circumstances of that crime. I dare say that
the applies to the majority of countries, including yours.
Try to understand that. You may not like it, and you may not approve of it, but
that is the way it is. If you don't like it, come to America and change the
law.
Jigsaw
Euro
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com>
??????:20031022120659...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: PV surrounded by murderer lovers?
> >From: "Euro" vs...@hotmail.com
> >Date: 10/22/2003 10:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <466c5389edf8f270...@news.meganetnews.com>
>
> ** A lot snipped **
>
>
> >I don't see how expressing concern for the human rights of a murderer
means
> >showing pity for them. Besides, victims do actually deserve pity and
> >compassion, and that in no way encompasses murderers being executed.
> >
> >Point hence irrelevant.
> >
> >Euro
> ===============================
>
> Speaking of a point Euro, you have missed it.
>
> The issue is the commission of a crime and the subsequent punishment for
the
> person who committed that crime.
>
> There are no statutes in law that require compassion and pity. Maybe you
feel
> that there should be, but you are wrong.
I _never_ mentionned any kind of compassion or pity for the murderers, but
for the victims. Your confusion between victims and murderers should
probably cause you to be called a "murderer lover" by PV, but we know
coherence has never been where he most excels.
Besides, everywhere death penalty has been abolished, it has not been done
out of compassion or pity for the murderers (except maybe for some specific
categories like simple-minded or minors), but in order to better protect
their human rights.
Your objection is thus irrelevant, or at best directed to the wrong person.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Apparently, you have a bit of a problem with that 'light,' sport... since
all you've done here is clip, and provide some meaningless insult.
The fact that you are a murderer lover is undeniable as far as I'm
concerned, and cannot be denied by you, by simply clipping the
entire comment and providing another of your 'rote' insults. Given
that I am not a murderer lover, as you are... I obviously have no
problem being exposed to the light. Unless you believe the light
is held by murderer lovers. Ah... but of course you do.
The points I've mentioned that should bring you into the 'light,' but
have been totally ignored by you... provide my opinion that
you are nothing but a murderer lover. You might bring yourself into
the 'light' if you only shed your love for murderers and --
1) Apologize for stating it is 'moral' to elevate a murderer to a revered
position in an organized religion, which would require that murderer
be referred to as BLESSED and be VENERATED by those in that
organized religion. And admit you were vile and insane to do so.
2) Apologize for your vile and insane claim that no gradation exists
between murderers and innocent slaves.
3) Recognize and admit that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers
from non-murderers. And admit that you were vile and insane to presume
they could not be separated.
4) Admit that John Wayne Gacy does not have the SAME 'equal rights' as
those who have never committed a crime. And admit that it was vile and
insane for you to presume he had those same 'equal rights.'
5) Admit you were vile and insane to argue that 40,000 killings cannot be
compared to about 35 killings annually, when BOTH those 40,000 killings
and those 35 killings could be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY eliminated
by an action taken by the State. You having stated that those 40,000 deaths
of non-murderers, were an "irrelevant comparison" to those 35 deaths of
murderers.
6) And finally, admit that you were vile and insane, when you could have
freed the slaves, abolished slavery, and stated to the 'voters' that doing so
in NO WAY changed your total and absolute opposition to the DP... OR
you could have 'saved' all murderers from the DP, abolished the DP, and
stated to the 'voters' that doing so in NO WAY changed your total and
absolute opposition to slavery....even blaming politicians for limiting your
powers. BUT you did NEITHER. Accept that you did neither, because of
your SELFISH expression of your character... and your now PROVEN
admission that you find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent
slaves. Admit you left them BOTH TO ROT in two conditions that you
claim to express to hate... yet allowed to CONTINUE.... BOTH OF THEM.
Only though such admissions... can you be even begin to be brought into the 'light,'
euro.
PV
>Euro
A Planet Visitor
Given that I have never called Donna a "murderer lover," I can now
clearly call you a liar for claiming I have. Hardly surprising that a
murderer lover would hope to find another called a murderer lover,
in support for his own love of murderers.... but you will find I have
never done so - see
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=Donna++%22murderer+lover%22+group:alt.activism.death-penalty+author:planet&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r
Donna has perhaps presumed I have aligned her views too closely with
those of her spouse, but she is mistaken, and certainly cannot provide any
instant which would conclude I find her to be a murderer-lover. Her
moral support for criminals and even murderers, which I find naive, and
possibly dangerous (she does not see it that way), does not extend to the
definition I hold for those who love murderers. You are becoming more
and more desperate... as demonstrated by your lies becoming more and
more obvious, losing all sense of being devious and now simply transparent
lies.
Now when are you going to call your MESSIAH a liar?... for his words --
"As FuckWit is on record as supporting in-prison murders, Donna" Since
he has admitted in his own words that I 'COMPLAIN' about murderers
being murdered, which most certainly shows I do not 'support' in-prison
murders (in addition to a VAST number of posts between Peter Morris
and myself, where I demonstrate my total opposition to in-prison murders).
Rather, Desmond's posts demonstrate that HE supports in-prison murders...
if murderers are the innocent victims of such murders... finding someone who
does complain about murderers being murdered, is "retarded." See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_134.html
PV
>Euro (alias Buridan's ass)
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:bs74pvsn4p6jo5v0b...@4ax.com...
>
>(snipping 19K of crap in which PV justifies himself, of course with plenty
>of lies)
>
TRANSLATION ==> I'll clip everything because I cannot dispute a single
word from PV... and call it filled with plenty of lies... in another of my 'rote'
insults, that contain nothing of value other than that 'rote' insult. <==
How predicable you have become, euro.
>Repeating my conclusion:
>
>"Obviously, the use of 'murderer lover,' disgusts me".
>PV,
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=x9m0a.23163%24QQ4.210207%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
Of course it does... Finding it necessary to remark that the posts
of some here demonstrate they are racists, also disgusts me. I
wish I never had to use those terms. But just as certain is the
fact that I would be more disgusted with myself, were I to permit
those comments to not be recognized. Worse than using those
words that disgust me to describe that I see that sentiment
in those I mention, would be an aversion to mentioning it. A
refusal to know... and to be an accomplice to that sentiment in
my silence. A silence coming from what I would realize is a
cowardliness of moral responsibility and a laziness of the basic
instincts we should hold. Something much more destructive than
the use of a word that disgusts me when I find it necessary to be
used. Using those words that disgust me... are the 'lesser of
two evils.' Given that I must still look myself in the mirror every
morning.
My opinion is that murderer lovers are the bane of principled
abolitionists... since those principled abolitionists recognize that murderer
lovers have no principles, and no conscience. True 'non-selective
retentionists' -- those expressing the view of "kill them all... and
let God sort them out" ...those who seek only the execution of
ALL murderers, and even beyond that, are the bane of principled
retentionists... since those principled retentionists recognize that those
who are 'non-selective retentionists,' also have no principles, and no
conscience. Neither murderer lovers nor true 'non-selective retentionists'
leave room for any rational arguments in respect to the DP, thus are
worthless in respect to AADP, having only the meaning of intolerance,
evil and ignorance within the subject of the DP. There is absolutely no
doubt in my mind that it is impossible to hold a rational dialog with
a murderer lover. Thus, the only thing left for me... is to note that
they are seen by me as a murderer lover, provide the words they
have written here, which have led me to come to that conclusion,
rather than simply provide it as a 'rote' insult' (as you do in the
opposite context of denial that you are a murderer lover), and explain
that through such recognition, at least for me, it leaves behind any
possibility of a rational or fruitful dialog whereby we can examine
not only our own, but the views of others. Is that clear?
>(we're glad to see how easily PV can jump over what disgusts him)
>
Not at all... it is quite difficult... but necessary. As with my support
of the DP... calling someone a murderer-lover is the 'lesser of two
evils.' The greater evil would be to let it pass unnoticed, IMHO.
Thus... once again... I have found you to be a murderer-lover. Not
the greatest in AADP, of course. That will never happen as long as
Desmond Coughlan posts here... but certainly in the #2 position as
of today. Of course, this characterization is only in respect to
the love for murderers expressed as a protection from any murderers
being executed in the lawful U.S. DP. I would have to say that Ol'
Racist Nev... hoping to deny the breadth and scope of the holocaust,
and support those who murdered the Jews in the holocaust... must
naturally love those who murdered more humans than any other murderers.
I do not for an instant contend that either you or Desmond would deny
any aspect of the holocaust, as Ol' Racist Nev does, even given that
both you and Desmond have expressed a 'dislike' for the Jews. It
certainly doesn't extend into any belief of mine that you or Desmond
are not as horrified by the holocaust as any other rational person
is horrified by that morally inexcusable, shocking, loathsome and
murderous event from the past.
>"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
>If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
>perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
>They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
>equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
>make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
>PV,
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
>
>(so remember that each time PV uses this word, he is vile and insane. I am
>glad to proclaim that PV has been insane and vile for exactly 13 pages of
>posts found on Google)
>
Actually, I am describing those who are 'vile and insane,' using a
word that is 'vile and insane,' but one absolutely necessary in that
case. Non si fanno frittate senza rompere le uova.
>"You're the only 'murderer-lover' here, desipoo".
>Written in January 2003 by PV
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=WVvU9.73756%24Sa3.1736700%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
>(that was my usual rubric "welcome to PV's fabulous world, the world where
>everything is true and its contrary as well)
>
Another lie from you... since my clear meaning was 'between the two of us,'
since he had presumed that I was such a 'murderer-lover.' And nothing could
be further from the truth, since I have never expressed any affection whatsoever
for murderers... while he does so (as you do) every chance he gets. As usual,
though... I am now accustomed to finding deception in your every insult.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>We're waiting for PV to present apologies for having been "vile and insane"
>with more than 10 regular posters over the past two years.
>
When others apologize for being murderer lovers, racists and anti-Semites,
you'll find that I will admit they have done so... since I am of a forgiving
nature. YOU could start by --
1) Apologizing for stating it is 'moral' to elevate a murderer to a revered position
in an organized religion, which would require that murderer be referred to as
BLESSED and be VENERATED by those in that organized religion. And admit
you were vile and insane to do so.
2) Apologizing for your vile and insane claim that no gradation exists between
murderers and innocent slaves.
3) Recognizing and admitting that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers from
non-murderers. And admit that you were vile and insane to presume they could not
be separated.
4) Admitting that John Wayne Gacy does not have the SAME 'equal rights' as
those who have never committed a crime. And admit that it was vile and insane
for you to presume he had those same 'equal rights.'
5) Admitting you were vile and insane to argue that 40,000 killings cannot be
compared to about 35 killings annually, when BOTH those 40,000 killings
and those 35 killings could be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY eliminated
by an action taken by the State. You having stated that those 40,000 deaths
of non-murderers, were an "irrelevant comparison" to those 35 deaths of
murderers.
6) And finally, admitting that you were vile and insane, when you could have
freed the slaves, abolished slavery, and stated to the 'voters' that doing so in
NO WAY changed your total and absolute opposition to the DP... OR you
could have 'saved' all murderers from the DP, abolished the DP, and stated to
the 'voters' that doing so in NO WAY changed your total and absolute
opposition to slavery....even blaming politicians for limiting your powers
to do both. BUT you did NEITHER. Accept that you did neither, because of
your SELFISH expression of your character... and your now PROVEN
admission that you find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent
slaves. Admit you left them BOTH TO ROT in two conditions that you claim
to hate... yet allowed to CONTINUE.... BOTH OF THEM.
Finally, euro... again an explanation of the difference I see between an
abolitionist, and a murderer-lover == One may oppose the DP for moral,
reasonable and pragmatic reasons. I can respect and argue rationally with
those who do. One may not oppose the DP because they love murderers.
Because that is NOT RATIONAL. Looking at the above, they represent
the proof of your love for murderers, and proof that you do not actually
oppose the DP for moral, reasonable or pragmatic reasons... but simply
because you value each murderer more than at least ten innocent victims.
And that is NOT RATIONAL! It is NOT rational to value less than a thousand
PROVEN murderers the SAME as millions of innocent slaves... since
innocent slaves are victims, and murderers are victimizers. You may argue
that the execution of a murderer is an evil... as it certainly is... given a belief
that the killing of any human by another human, even in the most certain of
acts of self-defense, has some measure of evil to it. But you cannot argue
that there are not GREATER evils, in any comparison to the DP. I certainly
believe you cannot rationally argue the execution of one murderer against
the murder of one innocent. If only I could get that through your thick skull...
you might possibly shed that image I have of you as a murderer lover.
Yet you wonder why I find you totally devoid of the slightest moral principle.
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:bv7hpvg9p7mfqn1m5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:18:04 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:5o74pvk38kn7ntli8...@4ax.com...
> >
> >(snipping 6K of PV's rants)
> >
> >Poor PV... He claims he is the one who exposes others to light, but
> >obviously doesn't like to be exposed himself.
> >
> Apparently, you have a bit of a problem with that 'light,' sport... since
> all you've done here is clip, and provide some meaningless insult.
> The fact that you are a murderer lover is undeniable as far as I'm
> concerned, and cannot be denied by you, by simply clipping the
> entire comment and providing another of your 'rote' insults. Given
> that I am not a murderer lover, as you are... I obviously have no
> problem being exposed to the light. Unless you believe the light
> is held by murderer lovers. Ah... but of course you do.
>
> The points I've mentioned that should bring you into the 'light,' but
> have been totally ignored by you... provide my opinion that
> you are nothing but a murderer lover. You might bring yourself into
> the 'light' if you only shed your love for murderers and --
>
> 1) Apologize for stating it is 'moral' to elevate a murderer to a revered
> position in an organized religion, which would require that murderer
> be referred to as BLESSED and be VENERATED by those in that
> organized religion. And admit you were vile and insane to do so.
I never wrote that it was "moral" to elevate a murderer to a revered
position in an organized religion".
> 2) Apologize for your vile and insane claim that no gradation exists
> between murderers and innocent slaves.
I never wrote that there was no gradation between murderers and innocent
slaves.
> 3) Recognize and admit that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers
> from non-murderers. And admit that you were vile and insane to presume
> they could not be separated.
I never wrote that it was "not morally reasonable to separate murderers from
non-murderers". The only thing I wrote regarding separation between
murderers and non murderers was in a clear context, i.e. to make someone
observe that the "us/them" type of judgement was inappropriate.
> 4) Admit that John Wayne Gacy does not have the SAME 'equal rights' as
> those who have never committed a crime. And admit that it was vile and
> insane for you to presume he had those same 'equal rights.'
John Wayne Gacy is a human, in spite of what he did. He has and should enjoy
the same "human rights". I am curious to know on which basis you could deny
him that.
> 5) Admit you were vile and insane to argue that 40,000 killings cannot be
> compared to about 35 killings annually, when BOTH those 40,000 killings
> and those 35 killings could be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY eliminated
> by an action taken by the State. You having stated that those 40,000
deaths
> of non-murderers, were an "irrelevant comparison" to those 35 deaths of
> murderers.
Your reasoning on this issue is stupid. 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.
> 6) And finally, admit that you were vile and insane, when you could have
> freed the slaves, abolished slavery, and stated to the 'voters' that doing
so
> in NO WAY changed your total and absolute opposition to the DP... OR
> you could have 'saved' all murderers from the DP, abolished the DP, and
> stated to the 'voters' that doing so in NO WAY changed your total and
> absolute opposition to slavery....even blaming politicians for limiting
your
> powers. BUT you did NEITHER. Accept that you did neither, because of
> your SELFISH expression of your character... and your now PROVEN
> admission that you find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent
> slaves. Admit you left them BOTH TO ROT in two conditions that you
> claim to express to hate... yet allowed to CONTINUE.... BOTH OF THEM.
What was vile and insane was the test I answered, and the mind of the one
who did it. I also showed that, for very good reasons, I could have decided
to abolish the death penalty instead of having abolished slavery.
> Only though such admissions... can you be even begin to be brought into
the 'light,'
> euro.
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.
Now, we're waiting to see how close to light you will come.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:ie9hpvc49t18to3r1...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:20:05 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I trust that was someone who tends to often "speak metaphorically".
Calling
> >Donna a "murderer lover" is nothing you should be proud of anyway.
> >
> Given that I have never called Donna a "murderer lover," I can now
> clearly call you a liar for claiming I have.
You will realize that Donna herself claims you called her so. I thought your
post was directed to Earl. I happen to trust Donna more than you.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:95mipv86hqlq3ia8m...@4ax.com...(snipped)
>
> How predicable you have become, euro.
Not more than you, PV. One is sure, when one doesn't make friends with you
on this group, by which names one will be called. Someone even created a
site of gimmicks and it is quite true that most of your posts have been
captured into those patterns.
> >Repeating my conclusion:
> >
> >"Obviously, the use of 'murderer lover,' disgusts me".
> >PV,
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=x9m0a.23163%24QQ4.210207%40twister.tampabay.rr.
com
> >
> Of course it does...
(snipped)
We're glad to see how easily PV can jump over what disgusts him.
> >
> Not at all... it is quite difficult...
But you do it so often that one can only jump to the conclusion that you
actually enjoy doing so. Unless it comes within your "predictability".
> >"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
> >If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
> >perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
> >They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
> >equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
> >make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
> >PV,
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.
rr.com
> >
> >(so remember that each time PV uses this word, he is vile and insane. I
am
> >glad to proclaim that PV has been insane and vile for exactly 13 pages of
> >posts found on Google)
> >
> Actually, I am describing those who are 'vile and insane,' using a
> word that is 'vile and insane,' but one absolutely necessary in that
> case. Non si fanno frittate senza rompere le uova.
I don't remember, though, that most of those you have called "murderer
lovers" called you "deathie" before. You seem to be the one who breaks the
eggs and initiates insults against those who disagree with you. Still, all
of them have so far refrained from being as "vile and insane", "perverse",
as you.
(remaining snipped... PV, after more than 2 years on Usenet, still didn't
understand that posting several times the same thing is useless - but it is
true that posting several times the same thing to PV is useful when one
remembers how slow he understands easy things. So let's go).
> The points I've mentioned that should bring you into the 'light,' but
> have been totally ignored by you...
Given the number of times you have raised them and I have replied them
(today is just the second time), I find it difficult to affirm I "totally
ignored" them. On the contrary, I don't see many answers on the points I
raised to you.
> provide my opinion that
> you are nothing but a murderer lover. You might bring yourself into
> the 'light' if you only shed your love for murderers and --
I know how "difficult" it was for you to write so... My condolences. Don't
feel obliged. After all, someone who argues that putting murderers to death
can be more humane than putting them in jail for life is well placed to be
considered a "murderer lover", and we all know that you are mainly here to
find friends who support your personal vendettas.
> 1) Apologize for stating it is 'moral' to elevate a murderer to a revered
> position in an organized religion, which would require that murderer
> be referred to as BLESSED and be VENERATED by those in that
> organized religion. And admit you were vile and insane to do so.
I never wrote that it was "moral" to elevate a murderer to a revered
position in an organized religion".
> 2) Apologize for your vile and insane claim that no gradation exists
> between murderers and innocent slaves.
I never wrote that there was no gradation between murderers and innocent
slaves.
> 3) Recognize and admit that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers
> from non-murderers. And admit that you were vile and insane to presume
> they could not be separated.
I never wrote that it was "not morally reasonable to separate murderers from
non-murderers". The only thing I wrote regarding separation between
murderers and non murderers was in a clear context, i.e. to make someone
observe that the "us/them" type of judgement was inappropriate.
> 4) Admit that John Wayne Gacy does not have the SAME 'equal rights' as
> those who have never committed a crime. And admit that it was vile and
> insane for you to presume he had those same 'equal rights.'
John Wayne Gacy is a human, in spite of what he did. He has and should enjoy
the same "human rights". I am curious to know on which basis you could deny
him that.
> 5) Admit you were vile and insane to argue that 40,000 killings cannot be
> compared to about 35 killings annually, when BOTH those 40,000 killings
> and those 35 killings could be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY eliminated
> by an action taken by the State. You having stated that those 40,000
deaths
> of non-murderers, were an "irrelevant comparison" to those 35 deaths of
> murderers.
Your reasoning on this issue is stupid. 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.
> 6) And finally, admit that you were vile and insane, when you could have
> freed the slaves, abolished slavery, and stated to the 'voters' that doing
so
> in NO WAY changed your total and absolute opposition to the DP... OR
> you could have 'saved' all murderers from the DP, abolished the DP, and
> stated to the 'voters' that doing so in NO WAY changed your total and
> absolute opposition to slavery....even blaming politicians for limiting
your
> powers. BUT you did NEITHER. Accept that you did neither, because of
> your SELFISH expression of your character... and your now PROVEN
> admission that you find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent
> slaves. Admit you left them BOTH TO ROT in two conditions that you
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Clown" <K.J.H...@t-online.de>
>??????:MPG.19fce5c31...@news.t-online.de...
>>
>(snipped)
>
>> Indeed aPV and myself discussed time and again about how to evaluate a
>> murder victim in the sentencing phase of any murder trial. I came to the
>> conclusion that aPV uses any murder victim as a general justification of
>> executions. Whenever he's confronted with particular cases when clear and
>> considerable mitigating circumstances had been bluntly ignored he goes
>> swiftly into victim-ignorance-accusations against his opponent, rather
>> than to examine the case and to analyze the reasons why lots of people
>> are executed whilst they did not bear a guilt of greater a gravity than
>> thousands of offenders sentenced to more lenient penalties than death.
>>
>> Klaun
>
>It is all too sad to see that PV is adopting here the same method Sharp
>used: instrumentalization of the victims' families' sorrow to justify a
>punishment, as if punishments were to provide victims' families with a kind
>of revenge.
>
Another meaningless 'rote' insult.' It's all too sad to see this group diverge
into a number of posters who are murderer lovers. But it has certainly helped
to solidify my absolute belief that abolition cannot presume a total dimension
of morality as long as there are those such as you and Desmond who support
abolition.
In fact, my only comments throughout my posting history, in respect to the
victim's families have been noted as only counter-arguments to those who
whine about the families of the murderers, and how they suffer... thus I
find the need to remind them that there are other families. Jürgen is quite
well-known for constantly speaking of the 'pain' of the murderers family
and friends, and how we must 'pity' them, thus 'saving' the murderer from
execution and instead leave the family to watch that murderer rot in prison
for the rest of both his and their natural lives. Of course, they can 'visit'
him, and find their emotional gut ripped out each time they do. How very
humane of him. Of course... speaking of the victim's family and friends has
no meaning in Jürgen's arguments. The victim is of course, dead... and
Jürgen simply believes they should 'get over it... he's dead.' Certainly,
they cannot 'visit' the victim.
In point of fact, I have always argued that the ONLY TRUE victim is
DEAD. And the only entity that can speak for that victim is society.
Society still has a responsibility to THE MURDERED victim. Who
else would anyone presume can speak for the victim? Certainly not
I, certainly not you, certainly not the murderer, certainly not the
victim's family and friends, certainly not the murderer's family and friends.
But with the victim having been murdered, unable to speak for their self,
does that mean the murderer WINS? Suddenly NO ONE can speak
for the victim? Only the murderer now has a voice? Well... that's total
crap to me. Society speaks for the victim. And until the murderer has
completed the entire punishment that society has imposed 'on behalf of'
the victim, the victim continues to have a voice.
All other 'presumed victims' cannot SPEAK FOR THE DEAD. Only
society can do so... since that is the ONLY voice left for the victim.
We do not punish on the say-so of the family of the victim... and we do
not excuse on the say-so of the family of the murderer... although they
both can speak THEIR feelings in the sentencing phase, once the murderer
has been proven guilty. But speaking for the DEAD is reserved for
society, after examining the various factors which might bear on the
appropriate sentence. The appropriate sentence of that murderer
belongs to society and no living human.
>Actually, I believe that those who adopt this method couldn't care less
>about victims' families. They're just an easy argument to bring once in a
>while, in order to dodge other arguments.
>
Actually, it's quite the other way around, and typical of a murderer lover
to contend that there are ONLY the families of the murderer to consider.
To be honest... I care LESS about the families of the MURDERER than
the families of the VICTIM... If that makes you happy. Just as I care
LESS about the murderer than I do about the VICTIM. Regardless of
the fact that the victim is dead. If executing a murderer could bring back
the victim, executing murderers would be used everywhere, and I
expect that the word abolitionist in respect to the DP would fall into
disuse. Of course, it cannot... but that does not mean an innocent victim
must be forgotten, simply because they are now dead. Someone has to
speak for that victim... and only society can do so. While I am just as
sure YOU care NOTHING about the families of the victim... nor even
the VICTIM. It's all about the murderer to you... and the MURDERER'S
FAMILY. And if you find that to be an insult... you would be perfectly
correct... but it is not a 'rote' insult, since the reason for my providing it,
has been clearly explained, in response to YOUR 'rote' insult.
PV
>Euro (Buridan's ass)
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:k8rjpv8vpmshc2ukh...@4ax.com...
(snipped)
> my only comments throughout my posting history, in respect to the
> victim's families have been noted as only counter-arguments to those who
> whine about the families of the murderers, and how they suffer...
Your posting history (which is more, the recent one) shows on the contrary
that you also throw that argument at abolitionists to better convince
yourself that it is right to call them "murderer lovers".
> >Actually, I believe that those who adopt this method couldn't care less
> >about victims' families. They're just an easy argument to bring once in a
> >while, in order to dodge other arguments.
> >
> Actually, it's quite the other way around, and typical of a murderer lover
> to contend that there are ONLY the families of the murderer to consider.
> To be honest... I care LESS about the families of the MURDERER than
> the families of the VICTIM... If that makes you happy.
It doesn't make me happy. Actually, I am sad to see that you instrumentalize
the sorrow of victims' families, and I am just as sad to see that you don't
care about murderers' families. They both deserve the same compassion for
the ordeals they suffered.
Whether one should add, to these ordeals of murderers' families, the ordeal
of an execution is another issue. When the tears of one mother respond to
the tears of another mother, one can easily realize that revenge has
substituted itself to justice.
Euro
JIGSAW1695
>Message-id: <7e9597fcb7e1a8b2...@news.meganetnews.com>
The families of the convicted are just more of his/her victims.
And BTW, the execution of a justly convicted murderer is justice.
Stop trying to say that it is not.
Jigsaw
Clown
jigsa...@aol.com says...
...
> >It doesn't make me happy. Actually, I am sad to see that you instrumentalize
> >the sorrow of victims' families, and I am just as sad to see that you don't
> >care about murderers' families. They both deserve the same compassion for
> >the ordeals they suffered.
> >
> >Whether one should add, to these ordeals of murderers' families, the ordeal
> >of an execution is another issue. When the tears of one mother respond to
> >the tears of another mother, one can easily realize that revenge has
> >substituted itself to justice.
> >
> >Euro
> ==============================
>
> The families of the convicted are just more of his/her victims.
>
This is a comfortable little verse, which allows to shift the
responsibility for the act of killing a prisoner away from the
executioners. True is, however, that there are other options of
punishment, so the responsibility for the consequences of an execution
lie just on the executioners, and nowhere else.
> And BTW, the execution of a justly convicted murderer is justice.
>
> Stop trying to say that it is not.
>
The US-DP is not justice. It is an instrument of popularism.
K.
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 10/25/2003 4:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.1a045088d...@news.t-online.de>
I keep telling you Klaun, you are wrong.
The DP is an element of the US law. If not, perhaps you can explain to me...to
us...to all of us.... why is was not specifically forbidden when the US Bill of
Rights was written?
Jigsaw
Clown
jigsa...@aol.com says...
Well, Mr Justice Douglas in Furman vs Georgia says, thereby referring to
the Bill of Rights:
"That the requirements of due process ban cruel and unusual punishment is
now settled."
and later on:
"Whether the privileges and immunities route is followed, or the due
process route, the result is the same.
It has been assumed in our decisions that punishment by death is not
cruel, unless the manner of execution can be said to be inhuman and
barbarous. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 447 . It is also said in our
opinions [408 U.S. 238, 242] that the proscription of cruel and unusual
punishments "is not fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as
public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice." Weems v. United
States, supra, at 378."
That, Monsignore, expresses the hope that public opinion may consider
cruel once what formerly might have been considered normal. Bearing this
in mind and regarding the dynamic nature of the law it becomes clear that
the possibility of a coexistence of a legal formalism enabling the DP and
a popularist DP in its application is given.
K.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:flb6pvo4gj6ajh1gt...@4ax.com...
>
>(snipping a long self-justification for PV calling some 12 regular posters,
>plus a cardinal, "murderer lovers")
>
That particular Cardinal has most certainly stated that he is a lover of the
murderer Jacques Fesch. In no uncertain terms. And you have stated
that you needed to "stress the great moral qualities of Lustiger" for being
that murderer lover... which makes you a lover of a murderer lover, and
by extension a murderer lover yourself. Of course there are a number of
other comments you have made that make it clear to me you are a murderer
lover.
>How about those lines, that you posted to John, to explain that the words
>"murderer lover" and "deathie" were _equally_ "vile and insane"? Have you
>realized that most of those you called "murderer lovers" never used the term
>"deathie"? Even against you?
>
>Maybe we're just too good for you, after all.
>
All murderers lovers believe they are too good for me. It goes with the
territory of my recognizing they are murderer lovers. Unless I show I
am one of them... they feel they are just too good for me. Just as racists
feel they are 'too good' for Blacks. See how close the mentality of
a murderer lover is to a racist? I do not feel I am too good for murderer
lovers... recognizing my own human foibles. But I am not a murderer
lover or a racist or an anti-Semite. Yet I am rather sure that you are
two out of three of those human characteristics.
>Euro
>---------------------
>PV: "Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
>If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
>perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
>They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
>equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
>make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
>
>www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
>
Actually, I am describing those who are 'vile and insane,' using a
word that is 'vile and insane,' but one absolutely necessary in that
case. Non si fanno frittate senza rompere le uova.
When others apologize for being murderer lovers, racists and anti-Semites,
you'll find that I will admit they have done so... since I am of a forgiving
nature. YOU could start by --
1) Apologizing for stating it is 'moral' to elevate a murderer to a revered position
in an organized religion, which would require that murderer be referred to as
BLESSED and be VENERATED by those in that organized religion. And admit
you were vile and insane to do so.
2) Apologizing for your vile and insane claim that no gradation exists between
murderers and innocent slaves.
3) Recognizing and admitting that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers from
non-murderers. And admit that you were vile and insane to presume they could not
be separated.
4) Admitting that John Wayne Gacy does not have the SAME 'equal rights' as
those who have never committed a crime. And admit that it was vile and insane
for you to presume he had those same 'equal rights.'
5) Admitting you were vile and insane to argue that 40,000 killings cannot be
compared to about 35 killings annually, when BOTH those 40,000 killings
and those 35 killings could be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY eliminated
by an action taken by the State. You having stated that those 40,000 deaths
of non-murderers, were an "irrelevant comparison" to those 35 deaths of
murderers.
6) And finally, admitting that you were vile and insane, when you could have
freed the slaves, abolished slavery, and stated to the 'voters' that doing so in
NO WAY changed your total and absolute opposition to the DP... OR you
could have 'saved' all murderers from the DP, abolished the DP, and stated to
the 'voters' that doing so in NO WAY changed your total and absolute
opposition to slavery....even blaming politicians for limiting your powers
to do both. BUT you did NEITHER. Accept that you did neither, because of
your SELFISH expression of your character... and your now PROVEN
admission that you find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent
slaves. Admit you left them BOTH TO ROT in two conditions that you claim
to hate... yet allowed to CONTINUE.... BOTH OF THEM.
Finally, euro... again an explanation of the difference I see between an
A Planet Visitor
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:18:15 +0200, Clown <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> >Whenever he's confronted with particular cases when clear and
>> >considerable mitigating circumstances had been bluntly ignored he goes
>> >swiftly into victim-ignorance-accusations against his opponent, rather
>> >than to examine the case and to analyze the reasons why lots of people
>> >are executed whilst they did not bear a guilt of greater a gravity than
>> >thousands of offenders sentenced to more lenient penalties than death.
>> >
>> That's the problem, Jürgen... you see those who murder as bearing NO
>> guilt, if you happen to see another who murdered who was not executed.
>
>Not at all. I happen to see a harsh prison term not as an excuse for
>murder or a denial of guilt.
>
I am speaking of 'comparative guilt.'
>> .... The gravity of MURDER
>> is EQUAL in all cases, since every murder takes the life of another.. and
>> each life taken is of equal value. I have no problem with the thousands
>> of murderers who are sentenced to penalties other than the DP...
>
>It is a question of consistency, simply. It is you who wants to make a
>difference who guilty 'deserves' and who 'not deserves' the DP. Then you
>have to put reasonable criteria for this distinction.
>
Consistency could well be argued as the execution of every murderer.
You play into the hand of those who would believe that achieves the
consistency you presume is an absolute essential. It is not... since
other than the execution of none or the execution of all murderers, we
both know it cannot be humanly achieved. I simply refuse to agree
that murderers WIN...and accept that because we cannot possibly
achieve absolute consistency because of our human limitations that
ALL murderers escape the DP.
The DP remains as the maximum penalty for the crime of capital
murder, if convicted of that murder, and the jury agrees with that
sentence, and the judge agrees with that sentence, and all due
process agrees with that sentence, and the sentence is carried out
some years later after all appeals have been exhausted. That may
not be good enough in terms of consistency for YOU... but it is
for me. Even if I disagree with the execution of a particular murderer.
It is no different a disagreement than if the maximum penalty for
the crime of rape was 20 years, and I felt a rapist should have
received only 15 years instead of that maximum 20 years for the
rape he committed. It is simply a disagreement with the sentence,
and in no way a disagreement with the concept of punishment for
rape, or the existence of a maximum sentence of that 20 years for
rape. Since I might see another who I fully believe should receive
that 20 year sentence. Thus, I would agree with the existence of
that particular maximum penalty.
>
>> In reality, what you are arguing is that we should
>> extend mercy to ALL murderers, because we did not extend it to some
>> who were executed, while having done so for others who committed
>> murders you see as worse than those who were executed.
>>
>> But I disagree with that argument. You simply cannot use those who
>> were NOT executed as an excuse to not execute ANY murderer.
>
>I refer to equity before the law, and since the US present most arbitrary
>death sentences and executions I establish therein most grave an
>injustice.
>
What IS 'equity before the law'? I believe you have used that
'buzz phrase' over and over, and it still has no real meaning, other
than you believe the DP is not 'equity before the law.' Which
simply boils down to 'your opinion' again.
>> Because another could argue that the solution is the opposite of
>> what you propose, if 'equity' if demanded. That opposite being
>> execute EVERY murderer. That certainly would provide the
>> 'equity' you expect... but the outcome would be absolutely unacceptable
>> to me, in a moral sense.
>
>And? There are arguments which do not work symmetrically. I can not see
>why the opposite to abolition, i.e. the execution of all murderers as an
>IYO unacceptable imagination, should have impact on the establishment
>that the DP can not be administered without leading to gravely unequal
>treatment of most similarly guilty people.
>
I just don't know what you're trying to say here.
>> Tell me... under what conditions would you support the use of the DP in
>> Germany? In the U.S.? I am certain that you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE
>> for Man to correctly identify to YOUR satisfaction what murderers should
>> and should not be executed... so YOU will decide for everyone that NO
>> MURDERER should be executed.
>
>I decide nothing. I discuss. And I see that the US do make not even an
>ATTEMPT to come to a meaningful selection of candidates for the DP.
>
Well... I see that as a copout. You certainly decide that the DP in the
U.S. should be abolish... or have you NOT decided that in your mind?
PV
>K.
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:d0sopvc36i7n3p0mg...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:23:05 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:flb6pvo4gj6ajh1gt...@4ax.com...
> >
> >(snipping a long self-justification for PV calling some 12 regular
posters,
> >plus a cardinal, "murderer lovers")
> >
> That particular Cardinal has most certainly stated that he is a lover of
the
> murderer Jacques Fesch. In no uncertain terms.
Give us a URL where he has stated this "in no uncertain terms". I trust it
will be easier for me to give a URL in which you called another poster a
zoophile, "in no uncertain terms".
Euro
(remaining lies snipped)
FitzHerbert
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:23:05 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:flb6pvo4gj6ajh1gt...@4ax.com...
> >
> >(snipping a long self-justification for PV calling some 12 regular posters,
> >plus a cardinal, "murderer lovers")
> >
> That particular Cardinal has most certainly stated that he is a lover of the
> murderer Jacques Fesch. In no uncertain terms.
Eh? Have I missed sommat?
When did the Cardinal say he was Fesch's 'lover'?
I see a libel action coming your way, FuckWit, you twat... ho ho ho!
<snip>
Hope this helps,
Neville
> PV
FitzHerbert
> >The US-DP is not justice. It is an instrument of popularism.
> >
> >K.
> ==============================
>
> I keep telling you Klaun, you are wrong.
>
> The DP is an element of the US law. If not, perhaps you can explain to me...to
> us...to all of us.... why is was not specifically forbidden when the US Bill
> of Rights was written?
I am given to understand that slavery was also not 'specifically forbidden'.
Now, Jiggy, is slavery just or unjust?
> Jigsaw
Yrs,
Always,
Neville
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 10/27/2003 2:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f85d58f0.03102...@posting.google.com>
Dear YersAlwaysNeville,
It is injust and the proper action taken to eliminate it.
The difference in the between European law and American law is that in America,
if it is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. In Euro, if it is
not specifically permited, it is forbidden.
Fortunatly. thanks to American inlfuence and example, Europe has done away with
its archaic system based on rule by the Royals.
A Planet Visitor
Of course it does. What other 'emotion' would you attach to presuming
that a murderer has the SAME 'human rights' that I do?
> Besides, victims do actually deserve pity and
>compassion, and that in no way encompasses murderers being executed.
>
Tell that to your MESSIAH... because he claims that murder victims deserve
NOTHING... they are DEAD... and cannot be.. in his words -- "The dead
cannot be helped, 'honoured', shamed, libelled, hurt in any way." And --
A poster wrote to Desmond -- "This man raped and murdered a young girl.
She was 16 years old and her name was Aleta Bunch!'
Desmond replied -- "The young girl has no rights. She is dead. The dead cannot
be protected, honoured, or have their rights protected." See any PITY expressed
by your MESSIAH for the VICTIM?
And there are other instances of him arguing that the victim has no meaning
in respect to murderer... since the victim is dead... and the murderer is not.
>Point hence irrelevant.
>
Yes... expressing 'pity' for a murderer... is quite irrelevant. You may well oppose
the DP, as an argument in respect to your belief in an imaginary 'right to life,'
since I admit you may also believe in the Easter Bunny. There are a number of
reasons to oppose the DP on principle, quite aside from that silly belief in the
Easter Bunny... still... it is not my job to argue FOR those reasons -- but to argue
my reasons to support the DP represent a lesser evil than THOSE REASONS.
However, one of the reasons that I absolutely refuse to accept as a rational idea
in opposing the DP... is because you feel PITY for the murderer. It is the most
meaningless and pseudo-moralistic idea I can imagine to oppose the DP because
of PITY for the murderer. Because I cannot help but realize that doing so, avoids
the very clear conclusion that GREATER pity needs to be expressed for the
VICTIM... who was, of course -- MURDERED by that murderer. Pity... just
has NO PLACE in our examination of a murderer, and what we need to do
to prevent him from murdering again.
And please... STOP implying that murderers... or even criminals, have the SAME
'human rights' that non-murderers and non-criminals have. Since one of the
most fundamental 'human rights' is the 'right to liberty.' And presuming that
a murderer has such a 'human right' presumes that his 'liberty' cannot be
taken away from him... and thus we cannot impede him in ANY WAY from
committing as many murders as he wishes. The removal of LIBERTY in
incarcerating or controlling the liberty of such a murderer is essential in the
prevention of him committing another murder, until we are relatively sure that
he will NOT recommit another murder. We do NOT take away the 'human
right' of LIBERTY from a non-murderer... yet it is essential that we do so
with a murderer, for some length of time as the very least. Argue that Easter
Bunny, 'right to life,' but stay away from giving murderers the SAME 'human
rights' as non-murderers.
PV
>Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:26prpvcmleq90phjh...@4ax.com...
No, it doesn't. Human rights have nothing to do with pity.
> > Besides, victims do actually deserve pity and
> >compassion, and that in no way encompasses murderers being executed.
> >
> Tell that to your MESSIAH... because he claims that murder victims deserve
> NOTHING... they are DEAD... and cannot be.. in his words -- "The dead
> cannot be helped, 'honoured', shamed, libelled, hurt in any way." And --
I have no Messiah, and your rantings doesn't constitute a reply, or even a
disagreement, with my point. If you have something to tell to Desmond, I
would suggest you do it yourself.
(remaining snipped)
Euro
FitzHerbert
> >Subject: Re: PV surrounded by murderer lovers?
> >From: FitzHerb...@hotmail.com (FitzHerbert)
> >Date: 10/27/2003 2:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <f85d58f0.03102...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote in message
> >news:<20031025042717...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
> >
> >> >The US-DP is not justice. It is an instrument of popularism.
> >> >
> >> >K.
> >> ==============================
> >>
> >> I keep telling you Klaun, you are wrong.
> >>
> >> The DP is an element of the US law. If not, perhaps you can explain to
> me...to
> >> us...to all of us.... why is was not specifically forbidden when the US
> Bill
> >> of Rights was written?
> >
> >I am given to understand that slavery was also not 'specifically forbidden'.
> >
> >Now, Jiggy, is slavery just or unjust?
> >
> >> Jigsaw
> >
> >Yrs,
> > Always,
> > Neville
> ===============================
>
> Dear YersAlwaysNeville,
>
> It is injust and the proper action taken to eliminate it.
So I must ask: the DP is unjust, so why not take proper action to
eliminate it?
> The difference in the between European law and American law is that in America,
> if it is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. In Euro, if it is
> not specifically permited, it is forbidden.
Wrong way round, Jiggy.
> Fortunatly. thanks to American inlfuence and example, Europe has done away with
> its archaic system based on rule by the Royals.
Not this island, my misinformed chum. In fact, there is a case to be
made that the great bastions of freedom in this world are
_overwhelmingly_ headed by a monarch -- the Netherlands, Denmark,
Norway. I wish I could include the UK on such a list, but what with
the events in Iraq and the awful policies of King Tony...
Hope this finds you well,
Neville
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>le Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:18:24 GMT, dans l'article <95mipv86hqlq3ia8m...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>>>(snipping 19K of crap in which PV justifies himself, of course with plenty
>>>of lies)
>
>> TRANSLATION ==> Damn, euro got me again with his point's designed to
>> ram my inconsistency's up my ass and infect me with the AIDS on his
>> boot!! How portentious of him, alright! I'm off to the can for another
>> shit, number 40 since I got up! Marie-Pascale is an understanding kinda
>> gal, but the smells geting to even her!
>
>TMI, FuckWit.
>
What an ignorant shit you are... especially after --
The Nameless One alternate gimmick n° 16...
== The - I never forge unless caught - gimmick == See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8il3oc.565.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
Your words -- "Denise, at no time have I forged a post by Drewl, or anyone
else."
Obviously... caught red-handed here and now in such a forgery. How totally
pathetic... and, as Mr. D. once characterized you, when you spit in the
face of MLK...how totally "juvenile"... see --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
PV
>--
>Desmond "The Juvenile" 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
A Planet Visitor
Of course you did!!! Why do you demonstrate such a deceptive method?
You claimed it was MORAL for the Cardinal to do so... you thus find
DOING SO moral!!! How can you possibly argue that you find the
Cardinal moral for doing so... but YOU do not find it moral to do so?
If I claim that it was 'moral' for the State to execute John Wayne Gacy,
I am ABSOLUTELY also stating that I find it moral to execute John
Wayne Gacy!!
>> 2) Apologize for your vile and insane claim that no gradation exists
>> between murderers and innocent slaves.
>
>I never wrote that there was no gradation between murderers and innocent
>slaves.
>
I have already put up your words, directly saying that so many times.. and
you simply clip your own words... and deny saying them. For the last time --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetnews.com
Your words -- "in order to support 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." You state that some gradation
between slaves and murderers 'only exists in MY head.' Thus.. you
DENY that such a gradation exists between them in YOUR head.
Therefore, you wrote that -- there is no gradation between murderers
and innocent slaves IN YOUR HEAD. You cannot say one thing, and
then argue that you did not say it... or that it means something else.
>> 3) Recognize and admit that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers
>> from non-murderers. And admit that you were vile and insane to presume
>> they could not be separated.
>
>I never wrote that it was "not morally reasonable to separate murderers from
>non-murderers". The only thing I wrote regarding separation between
>murderers and non murderers was in a clear context, i.e. to make someone
>observe that the "us/them" type of judgement was inappropriate.
>
Rubbish... I was not quoting you, but paraphrasing your very clear meaning
that you did not feel it is moral or provides progress to our species to separate
murderers and non-murderers. Your exact words -- "I don't think one makes
much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and murderers
(the evil ones)." Now, you may claim, as usual, that you didn't MEAN what
you SAID. but you clearly SAID IT. If you will read my words... I ask you to
recognize and admit that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers from
non-murderers. Do you really believe you have not stated that such
SEPARATION is UNNECESSARY? Do you now state that it IS NOT
morally reasonable to separate murderers from non-murderers? Can you
possibly EVER make up your mind?
>> 4) Admit that John Wayne Gacy does not have the SAME 'equal rights' as
>> those who have never committed a crime. And admit that it was vile and
>> insane for you to presume he had those same 'equal rights.'
>
>John Wayne Gacy is a human, in spite of what he did. He has and should enjoy
>the same "human rights". I am curious to know on which basis you could deny
>him that.
>
The basis is that he was convicted of murder, and needs to be removed from the
general society, even if one opposes the DP. We do not do that for those
NOT convicted of any crime. There is a 'human right' for those non-convicted
of any crime, which differs from convicted murderers. That is the 'human right'
to enjoy FREEDOM... you imbecile. Thus it is impossible for you to claim
he has the same 'human rights' that I do. He certainly, even if alive and not
sentenced to the DP, does NOT have the 'human right' to enjoy FREEDOM
as I do. Convicted murderers LOSE that right. Even presuming one opposes the
execution of that convicted murderer based on an imaginary 'human right to life,'
that is not the ONLY 'human right' we speak of, when we use the term 'human
rights.' You can argue until you're blue in the face that Gacy had some
Easter Bunny imaginary 'right to life,' which precluded his execution... that's your
right, regardless of how stupid I personally believe it is to believe in the Easter
Bunny. But when you speak of ALL 'human rights' you are no longer speaking
of ONLY a 'human right to life,' but those other rights we enjoy if we do not
commit crimes, such as a 'right to freedom.' We LOSE that 'right' when
convicted of a crime. Thus, it is absurd to argue that Gacy has the SAME
'human rights' that I have.
>> 5) Admit you were vile and insane to argue that 40,000 killings cannot be
>> compared to about 35 killings annually, when BOTH those 40,000 killings
>> and those 35 killings could be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY eliminated
>> by an action taken by the State. You having stated that those 40,000
>> deaths
>> of non-murderers, were an "irrelevant comparison" to those 35 deaths of
>> murderers.
>
>Your reasoning on this issue is stupid.
No, sport... you certainly cannot argue that. Since operating a motor vehicle
is not a RIGHT, but a PERMISSION... by the State. Just as the DP is
a PERMISSION from the state to execute certain murderers placed into
the criminal statutes. Both PERMISSIONS can be abolished. Obviously
no society would PERMIT the state to abolish the permission to operate
motor vehicles, but we are speaking of PERMISSIONS which cost
lives, and could theoretically be implemented which would SAVE those
lives.
> 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.
>
Horseshit. Road accidents, individual acts, resulting from unwanted actions
CAN be ABOLISHED.... by ABOLISHING the PERMISSION to
operate motor vehicles. The DP can be ABOLISHED... by ABOLISHING
the PERMISSION of the Justice System to execute any murderer.
There is absolutely no difference. You must realize that murder is
ALSO an individual act... resulting from unwanted actions by the state.
You are trying to compare vehicle fatalities with murders. Rather...
what SHOULD be compared is what the State PERMITS, and not
what the state cannot PREVENT. Under any conditions the state cannot
PREVENT murder. Under conditions where the state permits motor
vehicle operation, the state cannot PREVENT vehicle deaths.
But the state CAN PREVENT motor vehicle fatalities. And the state
CAN PREVENT executions of murderers. So rightly the comparison
belongs to what the state CAN PREVENT by abolishing what it has
PERMITTED. It CAN prevent motor vehicle fatalities, and it CAN
prevent the execution of murderers. Giving PERMISSION to
operate motor vehicles it CANNOT prevent those motor vehicle
fatalities, and in any case the state CANNOT prevent murder.
>> 6) And finally, admit that you were vile and insane, when you could have
>> freed the slaves, abolished slavery, and stated to the 'voters' that doing
>> so
>> in NO WAY changed your total and absolute opposition to the DP... OR
>> you could have 'saved' all murderers from the DP, abolished the DP, and
>> stated to the 'voters' that doing so in NO WAY changed your total and
>> absolute opposition to slavery....even blaming politicians for limiting
>> your
>> powers. BUT you did NEITHER. Accept that you did neither, because of
>> your SELFISH expression of your character... and your now PROVEN
>> admission that you find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent
>> slaves. Admit you left them BOTH TO ROT in two conditions that you
>> claim to express to hate... yet allowed to CONTINUE.... BOTH OF THEM.
>
>What was vile and insane was the test I answered,
Actually you did not answer... and that was the only part of it that was vile
and insane... since in effect, not answering was telling BOTH murderers and
innocent slaves to ROT... because YOUR pseudo-morality was MORE
IMPORTANT than saving one or the other. While it also proved you
found no difference between them.
> and the mind of the one
>who did it. I also showed that, for very good reasons, I could have decided
>to abolish the death penalty instead of having abolished slavery.
>
But you DIDN'T. If you HAD what you felt were those very good reasons... then
WHY did you not choose to save murderers? The answer is very clear... but
you lacked the guts to do so, realizing that doing so PROVED you valued
murderers differently from innocent slaves. You valued them MORE. You
knew that would be a moral condemnation of your own choosing. As I
pointed out... if you felt you had 'very good reasons' to abolish the DP
instead of slavery you COULD HAVE DONE SO, and not for one moment
presumed that doing so would be to admit that you ACCEPTED slavery.
You could have clearly stated that choosing to save murderers, in NO WAY
implied that you accepted any kind of slavery... only that you felt saving
murderers was MORE ESSENTIAL than saving slaves.
>> Only though such admissions... can you be even begin to be brought into
>> the 'light,'
>> euro.
>
>Now, how about bringing you to the light, PV? For instance:
>
I'm already there, euro... and you condemned me for trying to bring you
into the light... remember? You take my suggestions to you... and presume
they suddenly become your suggestions to me... but remember how you
ATTACKED a quote from a 'moral philosopher' that I used to ask YOU
to come into the light. Suddenly, you think it's a good idea, and now
presume that YOU are in the light... when your entire posting history
here, has only demonstrated you are completely 'in the dark.' In every
way... morally, intellectually, and sensibly... totally in the dark.
>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.
>
When some are 'vile and insane' for expressing such love for murderers...
it is my moral obligation to use a term that I do not relish using. Perhaps,
rather than worry about me calling you a murderer lover... you should
look in the mirror, and do some introspective examination of your
own views. I only call you what I see you to be... so perhaps you
should worry more about WHY I call you a murderer lover, rather
than protest so vehemently about my use of the term. Your 'argument,'
as silly as all of your arguments, is that I am 'vile and insane' because
I find YOU to be 'vile and insane.' Consider that maybe I have a
REASON for finding you a murderer lover, rather than obsessing
over my use of the term. Defend with an argument which you feel
would disprove you are a murderer lover, rather than simply find the
word 'offensive' to your sensitive ears. If I call you a murderer lover,
and you argue that doing so is 'vile and insane' on my part, that
actually doesn't DISPROVE you are a murderer lover. It only proves
you don't like me calling you one.
>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.
We have already been down each of those words... and I've demonstrated
that you are a fruitcake. The first word, is the favorite word of your
MESSIAH... and you have NEVER criticized him using that word... while
you can provide not a SINGLE post of mine that shows I CALLED another
poster that word, since John Rennie asked that it not be used. The second
word... was YOUR invention... since I never used it, until you accused me
in a lie of using it. Not using the third word, when I see it in evidence would
be to become an accomplice to it. To hide from recognizing and
exposing it, when I see it. Clearly Desmond is a racist.. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/The_Racist_Desmond.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_71.html
I have seen it in others... but this is not a post to compile a list of all
racist comments I have seen in AADP. The fourth word has also
been demonstrated by a few posters here. Most recently, and most
unfortunately, by you. Having stated that you though it was DISGUSTING
of me to state that Cardinal Lustiger was a Jew. Certainly implying that
one should keep 'quiet' about that fact... as if it's a 'dirty little secret'
that someone is a Jew. The fifth word has been used again in the
demonstration of Desmond's numerous posts, where he implies that
those who post comments to him... that he cannot address, must
thus have a homoerotic attraction to him... which is obviously the
fears held by a homophobe... the belief that he is surrounded by
homosexuals -- See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_153.html
Of course, you failed to mention that Desmond has called me a paedophile
on at least seven different occasions. I believe another quite recently, making
it eight, but his posts are no longer archived to google. Those seven, however,
1) "It might have flown right over your pointy little
redneck head as said head was bobbing up and down over
Dwight-the-Altar-Boy-From-Tampa's crotch" See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=diablo-7F7BB2.00235902032002%40newsroom.utas.edu.au
2) "altar-boy shagging Bible-basher" See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=L7Po8.12823%24K52.2085263%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
3) "altar-boy shagging prick"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=DUTo8.16901%24K52.2590863%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
4) "a bigoted old altar-boy-shagger"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0Dbg8.11590%24j93.3613806%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
5) "you altar-boy-molesting dipshit."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=FlVf8.13270%24TV4.1933557%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
6) "Dwight the altar-boy from Wisconsin (or was he from
Tampa ? Can't remember. So many young boys, so
little time, eh, Jed ?) "
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5qzg8.20855%24j93.5666102%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
7) "Never mind, FuckWit ... you still have kiddie porn to look forward to.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OvuV9.128771%24j8.3431971%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
>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.
>
My comments are always precise and accurate, and generally include
the direct quote from the other poster. You are simply stating what
YOU should do.
>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.
>
Simply a repeat of your previous comment... The 'whole picture' is there
to see... and that is what YOU would hide from.
>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.
>
I never said it did. Thus, that is YOUR lie. I have over and over stated
that there are principled abolitionists that I would not dream of calling
murderer lovers... unfortunately this group is a magnet FOR murderer lovers.
You really need to LOOK IN THE MIRROR. Nor does a 'majority'
imply anything, other than it can be just as wrong as the minority. I
don't believe that nations in Europe need the DP, thus I don't care if they
use it or not. But I would observe that never have so many been manipulated
so much, as the manipulations used by various organizations presuming that
it is a 'moral and principled' approach to protecting ALL murderers, and
given ALL murderers the right to murder as many humans as they possibly
can, in as many instances as they possibly can... while NEVER losing that
Easter Bunny imaginary 'right to life' of their own. The case in point would
be Milosevic, if convicted for the murders that most believe number in the
tens of thousands at least that he was responsible for Of course, IMHO.
And you may well call me a 'deathie' for presuming that Milosevic, if convicted
for the murders in question, very clearly deserves to be executed. And
in his particular case, I do not care if it is unclear if he represents a future
danger, since his crimes are so outrageous that it cries out for vengeance from
humanity itself, in that particular case... IMHO. I do not believe that
vengeance has any place in the U.S. DP, which concerns itself with individuals
who commit man-on-man murder... never in numbers that are in the tens
of thousands.
>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.
Pardon me... but it is NOT a fallacious presumption that they might reoffend.
The list of those who HAVE reoffended is lengthy. 8% of those murderers
now on DR in the U.S. have a PREVIOUS conviction for murder, were
sentenced to alternate penalties and DID murder again. I have provided
to you, a long list of double murderers. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
I would certainly deny criminals some 'human rights' that are not denied to
non-criminals. The idea of believing that criminals cannot be denied 'human
rights' if they commit crimes, is a philosophy which denies that crime carries
consequences. Clearly believing that no consequences result from
committing crime, is anarchy. It is a belief that the justice system itself,
which EXISTS to remove certain 'human rights' either temporarily or
permanently from those who commit crimes, should be abolished.
If you believe that... there is no longer any doubt as to why I call
you a fruitcake. What would you presume we do with murderers, if
not to deny them the 'human right' to freedom, at least temporarily?
Do you really believe the 'carrot approach' works, and we should offer
them unlimited sex from Miss America after six months, if they do not
reoffend for that six months while they retain their 'human right' to freedom?
I really don't know what you are raving about here.
>
>Now, we're waiting to see how close to light you will come.
>
Given that you insulted a quotation that presumed to bring you into the
light... it is recognized that you don't even know what the light is.
A Planet Visitor
Actually, you really "LOVE" to lie, don't you? Since Donna herself DID NOT
claim I had called her so. Her words can be seen at --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3f8c48c9%240%247589%2479c14f64%40nan-newsreader-03.noos.net
And she did not CLAIM any such thing. She said "I think..." and then
said "I may have merely..." No CLAIM... just presuming... and a false
presumption, since there is no indication of my calling her anything
more than naive, and perhaps placing herself in a dangerous position
through close connections with murderers. What you should TRUST
is the TRUTH. Rather than what you WANT to believe... and what
your MESSIAH tells you to believe.
PV
>Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:4vuupvouac9qmtn6l...@4ax.com...
I didn't invent Donna's claim. She precised that she "may have merely been
lumped with Earl". She anyway clearly felt targeted. Whatever... I happen to
trust Donna more than you.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> ?????
(snipping 17 K of lies previously posted on this group and on which I have
given due explanations at:
www.google.com/groups?selm=44e66b753bb7ec7a...@news.meganetnews
.com and snipping 5K of self-justification by PV of his previous insults
and various other funny things he wrote)
Sorry, there was nothing more.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>le 25 Oct 2003 08:27:17 GMT, dans l'article <20031025042717...@mb-m05.aol.com>, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> I keep telling you Klaun, you are wrong.
>>
>> The DP is an element of the US law. If not, perhaps you can explain to
>> me...to us...to all of us.... why is was not specifically forbidden when
>> the US Bill of Rights was written?
>
>Neither was slavery, you fucking dipshitted, sister-shagging moron.
>
LOL... That from the guy who spit in the face of MLK. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
Since your comment stinks to high heaven in anti-American spittle-filled
rage... let me provide a counter-point by noting that slavery in the U.S.
ended in 1865. Now... when did it become 'specifically forbidden' to
murder Jews in Europe? Or even non-Serbs in Bosnia? See --
http://www.balkan-info.com/html2/english/030905-SVETLA-001.htm
Given that you've claimed, and I quote -- "in matters of morals [Europe}has led
the world for over two thousand years." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn91gp2h.a9n.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
But I understand how you concluded that, Desmond... you find nothing
'immoral' about murder... it's only when anyone tries to impose a 'doctrine
of punishment' on murderers, that you become enraged and pour forth
obscenities. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_145.html
PV
>--
>Desmond 'nothing immoral about murder' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
>In article <20031025024049...@mb-m16.aol.com>,
>jigsa...@aol.com says...
>...
>> >It doesn't make me happy. Actually, I am sad to see that you instrumentalize
>> >the sorrow of victims' families, and I am just as sad to see that you don't
>> >care about murderers' families. They both deserve the same compassion for
>> >the ordeals they suffered.
>> >
>> >Whether one should add, to these ordeals of murderers' families, the ordeal
>> >of an execution is another issue. When the tears of one mother respond to
>> >the tears of another mother, one can easily realize that revenge has
>> >substituted itself to justice.
>> >
>> >Euro
>> ==============================
>>
>> The families of the convicted are just more of his/her victims.
>>
>
>This is a comfortable little verse, which allows to shift the
>responsibility for the act of killing a prisoner away from the
>executioners.
My... oh my... oh my. Why DO I always find it necessary to make
comments to remarks such as that? Oh, well ---- Yours is a
comfortable little verse which allows to shift the responsibility for
the act of murder away from the murderer.
> True is, however, that there are other options of
>punishment, so the responsibility for the consequences of an execution
>lie just on the executioners, and nowhere else.
>
Actually... it's a cause-effect principle. The consequences of executing
a proven murderer... lie just on the act of the murderer... and nowhere
else. Since without that murder... your entire 'theory' is moot.
My problem with all of your arguments against the DP, is that they
always try to SHIFT the burden of guilt from the murderer to society,
when it is obvious that the acts of murderers create the DP. Since
without any murders, there would be no DP for murder. Without
murder... there could not even possibly be a punishment for murder.
And that's not an opinion... but an irrefutable logical deduction from the
principles of cause-effect. Why not argue your opposition to the DP
in more reasonable terms? Instead of BLAMING society for the DP,
admit that the murderer is responsible for his acts, and find other
ways to oppose the DP... rather than expect anyone to believe that
the 'blame' for the execution... lies on the executioners? Even your
'equity' argument is much better than trying to place the 'blame' for the
existence of the DP on the executioners.
>> And BTW, the execution of a justly convicted murderer is justice.
>>
>> Stop trying to say that it is not.
>>
>
>The US-DP is not justice. It is an instrument of popularism.
>
Huh??? Now 'justice' is determined by the will of one person, and not
that represented by the majority? Let's put this in a framework that
I can understand. Justice -- in the meaning of the law -- is simply
'the application of the law.' Other than that, it remains your 'opinion'
whether that law is just, or whether the law is even reasonable, or the
application of that law is just. YOUR OPINION. That's all. Do
not try and create axioms of your opinion. You can well say ---
IMHO, the US-DP is not justice ---
and I would have no recourse but to admit you may hold that
opinion. But when you presume to be God... I become a bit upset.
IMHO.
PV
>K.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:k8rjpv8vpmshc2ukh...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:18:18 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>(snipped)
>
>> my only comments throughout my posting history, in respect to the
>> victim's families have been noted as only counter-arguments to those who
>> whine about the families of the murderers, and how they suffer...
>
>Your posting history (which is more, the recent one) shows on the contrary
>that you also throw that argument at abolitionists to better convince
>yourself that it is right to call them "murderer lovers".
>
Horseshit.
>> >Actually, I believe that those who adopt this method couldn't care less
>> >about victims' families. They're just an easy argument to bring once in a
>> >while, in order to dodge other arguments.
>> >
>> Actually, it's quite the other way around, and typical of a murderer lover
>> to contend that there are ONLY the families of the murderer to consider.
>> To be honest... I care LESS about the families of the MURDERER than
>> the families of the VICTIM... If that makes you happy.
>
>It doesn't make me happy. Actually, I am sad to see that you instrumentalize
>the sorrow of victims' families, and I am just as sad to see that you don't
>care about murderers' families. They both deserve the same compassion for
>the ordeals they suffered.
>
Actually, I state that the sorrow of both the victims families and the murderers
family are permitted in the pleadings offered in the sentencing phase. Neither
should outweigh the other. Wouldn't you think that neither should outweigh
the other?
>Whether one should add, to these ordeals of murderers' families, the ordeal
>of an execution is another issue. When the tears of one mother respond to
>the tears of another mother, one can easily realize that revenge has
>substituted itself to justice.
One can as well argue... and much more effectively - that 'pity' has
substituted itself to justice, when too much emphasis is given to the
families of either the victim or the murderer. Wouldn't you think that
'pity' is expressed from those families? I don't really know what you're
trying to say here, euro. Do you support only the victim's family
speaking in the sentencing phase? Which I presume you would believe
is 'revenge.' Or do you support only the murderer's family speaking in
sentencing phase? Which I presume you would believe is 'pity,' Or
do you support both speaking in the sentencing phase, and let the
jury make a determination, based on the emotional input from both
families? Or do you support neither of the families speaking in the
sentencing phase, thus removing all possibility of an emotional input into
that sentence? I hardly ever know what you're talking about... except
that here you've been rather clear... I presume you would DENY
the victim's family speaking since you would see that as possibly
introducing an 'element of revenge.' But you have no problem at all,
with the murderer's family speaking and introducing an 'element of
pity' for that murderer, and themselves. But then... where is the pity
that should be felt for the victim's family?
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:95mipv86hqlq3ia8m...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 06:23:59 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>(snipped)
>>
>> How predicable you have become, euro.
>
>Not more than you, PV. One is sure, when one doesn't make friends with you
>on this group, by which names one will be called.
Unlike you, sport. I do not seek or beg members of the group. You will
find I have repeated that dozens of times. Sadly... those who dwell in
the dark, dank pit of lies and deception, which represent your posting
history, are the only ones who find a need to SLURP... SLURP... SLURP
up to others... and desperately seek a MESSIAH they may follow in
a pitiful sheep-like fashion... even when their MESSIAH is the most
obscene member of AADP. A MESSIAH who states that the chances are
better that HE would murder than Theodore Frank would murder... A
MESSIAH who over and over uses the disgusting word "sp*****" to
describe other posters here, but never receives criticism from you... A
MESSIAH who consistently LAUGHS when reading of murder... A
MEssiah who enjoys dreaming about raping and committing murder of
a 17-year-old female teenager.. A MESSIAH who enjoys posting dead
and decaying pictures of bodies that he drools over. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021101212937.11087.00000563%40mb-fi.aol.com
YOUR MESSIAH!
> Someone even created a
>site of gimmicks and it is quite true that most of your posts have been
>captured into those patterns.
>
That would be YOUR MESSIAH. Just as you, he cannot handle the truth...
and needs to rely on deceit and lies when confronted with that TRUTH.
How I pity the both of you.
>> >Repeating my conclusion:
>> >
>> >"Obviously, the use of 'murderer lover,' disgusts me".
>> >PV,
>>
>>www.google.com/groups?&selm=x9m0a.23163%24QQ4.210207%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>> >
>> Of course it does...
>
>(snipped)
LOL... What did you snip, euro? Hiding from the TRUTH again?
>We're glad to see how easily PV can jump over what disgusts him.
>
Not at all... the greater evil would be to be disgusted by your conduct in
this respectable group... and always remain silent. It is, of course,
IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with ALL of your disgusting posts, as you
seem to be possessed by Satan himself (perhaps your MESSIAH??? -
or perhaps your desperation that your pseudo-morality is being exposed
as a sham??). But I do what little I can... even while remaining quite
disgusted with the entire body of your posting history.
>> >
>> Not at all... it is quite difficult...
>
>But you do it so often that one can only jump to the conclusion that you
>actually enjoy doing so. Unless it comes within your "predictability".
>
I do what is necessary, limited by what I recognize is my finite capacity
to keep up with ALL of your disgusting posts. Doing less, would not
permit me to look myself in the mirror each morning. Doing more,
is limited by the time I find available to expose you.
>> >"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
>> >If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
>> >perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
>> >They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
>> >equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
>> >make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
>> >PV,
>>
>>www.google.com/groups?&selm=a_bj8.102512%24Dl4.10290500%40typhoon.tampabay.
>rr.com
>> >
>> >(so remember that each time PV uses this word, he is vile and insane. I
>> > am
>> >glad to proclaim that PV has been insane and vile for exactly 13 pages of
>> >posts found on Google)
>> >
>> Actually, I am describing those who are 'vile and insane,' using a
>> word that is 'vile and insane,' but one absolutely necessary in that
>> case. Non si fanno frittate senza rompere le uova.
>
>I don't remember, though, that most of those you have called "murderer
>lovers" called you "deathie" before.
Whatever gave you the idea that I claimed someone needed to call me
a 'deathie' before I called them a 'murderer lover'? The fact is that
your MESSIAH calls EVERY retentionist, and even at least one
abolitionist a 'deathie.' That's called bigotry. I only call those
INDIVIDUALS I see are 'murderer lovers,' - murderer lovers.
Of course, being under the mind-control of your MESSIAH... the
difference will naturally fly right over your head.
> You seem to be the one who breaks the
>eggs and initiates insults against those who disagree with you. Still, all
>of them have so far refrained from being as "vile and insane", "perverse",
>as you.
You should perhaps consider that three of the posters I have called
murderer lovers, have in fact, threatened to murder me, while your
MESSIAH I has stated his hope to DESTROY, and rip to shreds
ALL retentionists, in this particular forum. Nice crowd you are
associating with. Do you wish to murder me too? Given that
you agree with EVERYONE your MESSIAH hopes for... including
your agreement with his LAUGHING at murder... the question needs
to be asked.
>(remaining snipped... PV, after more than 2 years on Usenet, still didn't
>understand that posting several times the same thing is useless - but it is
>true that posting several times the same thing to PV is useful when one
>remembers how slow he understands easy things. So let's go).
>
LOL... I don't think that even you know what you're saying there.
>> The points I've mentioned that should bring you into the 'light,' but
>> have been totally ignored by you...
>
>Given the number of times you have raised them and I have replied them
>(today is just the second time), I find it difficult to affirm I "totally
>ignored" them. On the contrary, I don't see many answers on the points I
>raised to you.
Actually you haven't 'replied' to them. You simply deny having said them,
and imply that you 'didn't mean what you said.' The words STAND, euro.
Your pathetic excuses will not extract you from the fact that THE WORDS
STAND.
>> provide my opinion that
>> you are nothing but a murderer lover. You might bring yourself into
>> the 'light' if you only shed your love for murderers and --
>
>I know how "difficult" it was for you to write so... My condolences. Don't
>feel obliged.
But I do feel obliged. That is the difference between us. I feel obliged
to point out the flaws in your argument. You seem obliged to generally
clip my pointing out those flaws, or enter into some haze of denial,
after I post the thrust of your comments. Such as you directly implying
that you find murderers just like innocent slaves, then deny you do,
but cannot choose between them and cannot state one single difference
you find between them. Then you question WHY I think you find them
just like each other. I think you find them just like each other, because
you see them as just like each other... IMHO... and you have been
unable to elucidate any difference you see between them.
> After all, someone who argues that putting murderers to death
>can be more humane than putting them in jail for life is well placed to be
>considered a "murderer lover", and we all know that you are mainly here to
>find friends who support your personal vendettas.
You see, euro... this is the reason that I am obliged to point out how
ignorant you are. Just read the words you've written in that particular
sentence to understand how you lie, and deceive to try and deny what
is most obvious. The fact that you would call ME a murderer lover,
for expecting that execution in certain cases for murderers is moral,
reasonable, and pragmatic, demonstrates EXACTLY what I have
been saying. That very comment from you demonstrates that YOU
are a murderer lover. Because it operates to PROTECT murderers.
Since you would presume that putting murderers to death is some
sort of 'love for murderers,' your words are obviously intended to
PROTECT murderers from that sentence... because of YOUR love
for them. If you REALLY wished to argue sensibly, you would
not be so deceptive. I could argue for abolition, much better than
you. If I were to argue for abolition, I would call me a 'murderer
hater,' rather than a murderer lover, and then argue that 'hate is
bad.' But instead... you realize that 'love for murderers is worse,'
and thus accuse me of THAT... which is simply your own view
in respect to murderers. God... but you are pathetic... you can't
even argue your cause successfully, without using MY argument
that 'love for murderers is bad.'
But it is the same method you learned from your MESSIAH. And the
only one he knows besides the 'rote' obscene insult. When it is
demonstrated that HE is a racist... he will call the one who exposed
him being a racist... a racist for doing so. This, in effect, intends to
PROTECT racists... implying that anyone who exposes a racist...
must himself BE a racist. Just as you implying that I am a murderer
lover for agreeing with the concept of the DP for some murderers,
only shows that YOU are that murderer lover, not me. Do you think
your limited intellectual capacity can follow that very precise logic?
>> 1) Apologize for stating it is 'moral' to elevate a murderer to a revered
>> position in an organized religion, which would require that murderer
>> be referred to as BLESSED and be VENERATED by those in that
>> organized religion. And admit you were vile and insane to do so.
>
>I never wrote that it was "moral" to elevate a murderer to a revered
>position in an organized religion".
>
Of course you did... And your denial only demonstrates how deceptive
you are. You think that because you didn't write EXACTLY the words
==> It is moral to elevate Fesch to a revered position in an organized
religion <== that you can deny you DID state in was "moral" to do so.
But you are a liar, for denying that was your exact meaning. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
You wrote -- "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."
You then stated your OPINION of how you felt about that elevation...
in the words -- "Thanks for giving me the opportunity to stress the great
moral qualities of Lustiger," You felt it was 'moral' of Lustiger to do
so...that is obviously stating your opinion that "it is 'moral' to elevate a
murderer to a revered position in an organized religion..." Which is what
I relate was your comment.
>> 2) Apologize for your vile and insane claim that no gradation exists
>> between murderers and innocent slaves.
>
>I never wrote that there was no gradation between murderers and innocent
>slaves.
>
Of course you did... Why are you such a liar? I have already put up your
words, directly saying that so many times.. and you simply clip your own
words... and deny saying them. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetnews.com
Your words -- "in order to support 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." You state that some gradation
between slaves and murderers 'only exists in MY head.' Thus.. you
DENY that such a gradation exists between them in YOUR head.
Therefore, you wrote that -- there is no gradation between murderers
and innocent slaves IN YOUR HEAD. You cannot say one thing, and
then argue that you did not say it... or that it means something else. Your
words say that YOU do not see a gradation between murderers and
innocent slaves... because you state that 'such a gradation' only exists
in MY head... and not yours.
>> 3) Recognize and admit that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers
>> from non-murderers. And admit that you were vile and insane to presume
>> they could not be separated.
>
>I never wrote that it was "not morally reasonable to separate murderers from
>non-murderers". The only thing I wrote regarding separation between
>murderers and non murderers was in a clear context, i.e. to make someone
>observe that the "us/them" type of judgement was inappropriate.
>
Why do you put those words in quotes, when I did not quote you, but
stated what you certainly did say? Again - I was not quoting you, but
paraphrasing your very clear meaning that you did not feel it is moral or
provides progress to our species to separate murderers and non-murderers.
Your exact words -- "I don't think one makes much progress by separating
non murderers (the good ones) and murderers (the evil ones)." Now, you
may claim, as usual, that you didn't MEAN what you SAID. but you clearly
SAID IT. If you will read my words... I ask you to recognize and admit
that it is morally reasonable to separate murderers from non-murderers.
Do you really believe you have not stated that such SEPARATION is
UNNECESSARY? Do you now state that it IS NOT morally reasonable
to separate murderers from non-murderers? Do you find that progress
for our species is morally reasonable, or is a return to the dark ages what
you believe is morally reasonable? Can you possibly EVER make up your
mind?
>> 4) Admit that John Wayne Gacy does not have the SAME 'equal rights' as
>> those who have never committed a crime. And admit that it was vile and
>> insane for you to presume he had those same 'equal rights.'
>
>John Wayne Gacy is a human, in spite of what he did. He has and should enjoy
>the same "human rights". I am curious to know on which basis you could deny
>him that.
>
The basis is that he was convicted of murder, and needs to be removed from the
general society, even if one opposes the DP. We do not do that for those
NOT convicted of any crime. There is a 'human right' for those non-convicted
of any crime, which differs from convicted murderers. That is the 'human right'
to enjoy FREEDOM... you imbecile. Thus it is impossible for you to claim
he has the same 'human rights' that I do. He certainly, even if alive and not
sentenced to the DP, does NOT have the 'human right' to enjoy FREEDOM
as I do. Convicted murderers LOSE that right. Even presuming one opposes the
execution of that convicted murderer based on an imaginary 'human right to life,'
that is not the ONLY 'human right' we speak of, when we use the term 'human
rights.' You can argue until you're blue in the face that Gacy had some
Easter Bunny imaginary 'right to life,' which precluded his execution... that's your
right, regardless of how stupid I personally believe it is to believe in the Easter
Bunny. But when you speak of ALL 'human rights' you are no longer speaking
of ONLY a 'human right to life,' but those other rights we enjoy if we do not
commit crimes, such as a 'right to freedom.' We LOSE that 'right' when
convicted of a crime. Thus, it is absurd to argue that Gacy has the SAME
'human rights' that I have.
>> 5) Admit you were vile and insane to argue that 40,000 killings cannot be
>> compared to about 35 killings annually, when BOTH those 40,000 killings
>> and those 35 killings could be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY eliminated
>> by an action taken by the State. You having stated that those 40,000
>deaths
>> of non-murderers, were an "irrelevant comparison" to those 35 deaths of
>> murderers.
>
>Your reasoning on this issue is stupid.
Actually... it is your inability to reason that demonstrates your stupidity,
euro. Don't fight it... try to understand it.
> 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.
>
Road accidents, individual acts, resulting from unwanted actions
CAN be ABOLISHED.... by ABOLISHING the PERMISSION to
operate motor vehicles. The DP can be ABOLISHED... by ABOLISHING
the PERMISSION of the Justice System to execute any murderer.
There is absolutely no difference. You must realize that murder is
ALSO an individual act... resulting from unwanted actions by the state.
You are trying to compare vehicle fatalities with murders. Rather...
what SHOULD be compared is what the State PERMITS, and not
what the state cannot PREVENT. Under any conditions the state cannot
totally PREVENT murder at this stage in our human development. Under
conditions where the state permits motor vehicle operation, the state
cannot PREVENT vehicle deaths at this stage in our human development.
But the state CAN prevent motor vehicle fatalities. And the state
CAN prevent executions of murderers. So rightly the comparison
belongs to what the state CAN PREVENT by abolishing what it has
PERMITTED. It CAN prevent motor vehicle fatalities, and it CAN
prevent the execution of murderers. Giving PERMISSION to
operate motor vehicles it CANNOT prevent those motor vehicle
fatalities, and in any case the state CANNOT prevent murder, at this
stage in our human development. If we COULD prevent motor vehicle
fatalities, you could argue that permitting the operation of motor vehicle
does not result in deaths. And if we COULD prevent murder, you
could argue that there is no need for the DP for murder. And I would
totally agree with you in both cases.
>> 6) And finally, admit that you were vile and insane, when you could have
>> freed the slaves, abolished slavery, and stated to the 'voters' that doing
>> so
>> in NO WAY changed your total and absolute opposition to the DP... OR
>> you could have 'saved' all murderers from the DP, abolished the DP, and
>> stated to the 'voters' that doing so in NO WAY changed your total and
>> absolute opposition to slavery....even blaming politicians for limiting
>> your
>> powers. BUT you did NEITHER. Accept that you did neither, because of
>> your SELFISH expression of your character... and your now PROVEN
>> admission that you find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent
>> slaves. Admit you left them BOTH TO ROT in two conditions that you
>> claim to express to hate... yet allowed to CONTINUE.... BOTH OF THEM.
>
>What was vile and insane was the test I answered,
Actually you did not answer... and that was the only part of it that was vile
and insane... since in effect, not answering was telling BOTH murderers and
innocent slaves to ROT... because YOUR pseudo-morality was MORE
IMPORTANT than saving one or the other. While it also proved you
found no difference between them.
> and the mind of the one
>who did it. I also showed that, for very good reasons, I could have decided
>to abolish the death penalty instead of having abolished slavery.
>
But you DIDN'T. If you HAD what you felt were those very good reasons... then
WHY did you not choose to save murderers? The answer is very clear... but
you lacked the guts to do so, realizing that doing so PROVED you valued
murderers differently from innocent slaves. You valued them MORE. You
knew that would be a moral condemnation of your own choosing. As I
pointed out... if you felt you had 'very good reasons' to abolish the DP
instead of slavery you COULD HAVE DONE SO, and not for one moment
presumed that doing so would be to admit that you ACCEPTED slavery.
You could have clearly stated that choosing to save murderers, in NO WAY
implied that you accepted any kind of slavery... only that you felt saving
murderers was MORE ESSENTIAL than saving slaves, doing so because
murderers were more important to YOU... than innocent slaves. While
still arguing that innocent slaves were important to you.
>> Only though such admissions... can you be even begin to be brought into
>>the 'light,'
>> euro.
>
>Now, how about bringing you to the light, PV? For instance:
>
I'm already there, euro... and you condemned me for trying to bring you
into the light... remember? You take my suggestions to you... and presume
they suddenly become your suggestions to me... but remember how you
ATTACKED a quote from a 'moral philosopher' that I used to ask YOU
to come into the light. Suddenly, you think it's a good idea, and now
presume that YOU are in the light... when your entire posting history
here, has only demonstrated you are completely 'in the dark.' In every
way... morally, intellectually, logically and sensibly... totally in the dark.
>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.
>
When some are 'vile and insane' for expressing such love for murderers...
it is my moral obligation to use a term that I do not relish using. Perhaps,
rather than worry about me calling you a murderer lover... you should
look in the mirror, and do some introspective examination of your
own views. I only call you what I see you to be... so perhaps you
should worry more about WHY I call you a murderer lover, rather
than protest so vehemently about my use of the term. Your 'argument,'
as silly as all of your arguments, is that I am 'vile and insane' because
I find YOU to be 'vile and insane.' Consider that maybe I have a
REASON for finding you a murderer lover, rather than obsessing
over my use of the term. Defend with an argument which you feel
would disprove you are a murderer lover, rather than simply find the
word 'offensive' to your sensitive ears. If I call you a murderer lover,
and you argue that doing so is 'vile and insane' on my part, that
actually doesn't DISPROVE you are a murderer lover. It only proves
you don't like me calling you one.
>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.
>
My comments are always precise and accurate, and generally include
the direct quote from the other poster. You are simply stating what
YOU should do.
>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.
>
Simply a repeat of your previous comment... The 'whole picture' is there
to see... and that is what YOU would hide from.
>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.
>
I never said it did. Thus, that is YOUR lie. I have over and over stated
that there are principled abolitionists that I would not dream of calling
murderer lovers... unfortunately this group is a magnet FOR murderer lovers.
You really need to LOOK IN THE MIRROR, and hopefully decide
that you don't wish to be called a murderer lover. Recognize that you
need to change your methods of arguing against the DP, so they do not
work to place murderers on a pedestal which would lead to Sainthood,
if you wish to change my opinion and shed that appellation.
Nor does a 'majority' imply anything, other than it can be just as wrong as
the minority. I don't believe that nations in Europe need the DP, thus I don't
care if they use it or not. But I would observe, in speaking of a presumed
'majority,' that never have so many been manipulated so much, by so many,
as with the manipulations used by various organizations presuming that protecting
ALL murderers from lawful execution in abolition is a 'moral and principled'
approach. Giving ALL murderers the right to murder as many humans as they
possibly can, in as many instances as they possibly can... while NEVER losing
that Easter Bunny imaginary 'right to life' of their own. The case in point would
be Milosevic, if convicted for the murders that most believe number in the
tens of thousands at least that he was responsible for Of course, IMHO.
And you may well call me a 'deathie' for presuming that Milosevic, if convicted
for the murders in question, very clearly deserves to be executed. And
in his particular case, I do not care if it is unclear if he represents a future
danger, since his crimes, if he is convicted of those crimes, are so outrageous
that it cries out for vengeance from humanity itself, in that particular case...
IMHO. I do not believe that vengeance has any place in the U.S. DP, which
concerns itself with individuals who commit man-on-man murder... never in
numbers that are in the tens or hundreds of thousands.
>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.
Pardon me... but it is NOT a fallacious presumption that they might reoffend.
The list of those who HAVE reoffended is lengthy. 8% of those murderers
now on DR in the U.S. have a PREVIOUS conviction for murder, were
sentenced to alternate penalties and DID murder again. I have provided
to you, a long list of double murderers. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
I would certainly deny criminals some 'human rights' that are not denied to
non-criminals. The idea of believing that criminals cannot be denied 'human
rights' if they commit crimes, is a philosophy which denies that crime carries
consequences. Clearly believing that no consequences result from
committing crime, is anarchy. It is a belief that the justice system itself,
which EXISTS to remove certain 'human rights' either temporarily or
permanently from those who commit crimes, should be abolished.
If you believe that... there is no longer any doubt as to why I call
you a fruitcake. What would you presume we do with murderers, if
not to deny them the 'human right' to freedom, at least temporarily?
Do you really believe the 'carrot approach' works, and we should offer
them unlimited sex from Miss America after six months, if they do not
reoffend for that six months while they retain their 'human right' to freedom?
I really don't know what you are raving about here.
>
>Now, we're waiting to see how close to light you will come.
>
Given that you insulted a quotation that presumed to bring you into the
light... it is recognized that you don't even know what the light is. Of
course, that 'moral philosopher' also spoke of 'forgiveness,' and
the 'merciful,' but apparently, as with his other words... they are all just
'rubbish' to you.
But thank you for the opportunity you have given me to again prove what
a liar and a hypocrite you are.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<d0sopvc36i7n3p0mg...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:23:05 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:flb6pvo4gj6ajh1gt...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >(snipping a long self-justification for PV calling some 12 regular posters,
>> >plus a cardinal, "murderer lovers")
>> >
>> That particular Cardinal has most certainly stated that he is a lover of the
>> murderer Jacques Fesch. In no uncertain terms.
>
>Eh? Have I missed sommat?
>
Yes.. Ol' Racist Nev... but it was at birth... you missed a brain.
>When did the Cardinal say he was Fesch's 'lover'?
>
When he proposed calling a Fesch BLESSED, which requires him to
VENERATE Fesch. Which is to honor someone as sacred or
special. In fact, one could just about call every RC Cardinal a
murderer-lover... since it's their 'job' to love murderers. Lustiger
is especially in a loving mood toward Fesch, which is a change from
most Cardinals being in a loving mood toward younger boys.
>I see a libel action coming your way, FuckWit, you twat... ho ho ho!
>
Oh... I'm so scared... like when you threatened to murder me... I'm still
shaking... you racist fruitcake.
><snip>
>
Hope this helps... but holocaust deniers are beyond help. They only deserve
to be pitied.
PV
> Ol' Racist Nev
>> PV
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:19:43 +0200, Clown <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >In article <20031025024049...@mb-m16.aol.com>,
> >jigsa...@aol.com says...
> >...
> >> >It doesn't make me happy. Actually, I am sad to see that you instrumentalize
> >> >the sorrow of victims' families, and I am just as sad to see that you don't
> >> >care about murderers' families. They both deserve the same compassion for
> >> >the ordeals they suffered.
> >> >
> >> >Whether one should add, to these ordeals of murderers' families, the ordeal
> >> >of an execution is another issue. When the tears of one mother respond to
> >> >the tears of another mother, one can easily realize that revenge has
> >> >substituted itself to justice.
> >> >
> >> >Euro
> >> ==============================
> >>
> >> The families of the convicted are just more of his/her victims.
> >>
> >
> >This is a comfortable little verse, which allows to shift the
> >responsibility for the act of killing a prisoner away from the
> >executioners.
>
> My... oh my... oh my. Why DO I always find it necessary to make
> comments to remarks such as that? Oh, well ---- Yours is a
> comfortable little verse which allows to shift the responsibility for
> the act of murder away from the murderer.
>
Well, IIRC you do not like to execute any murderer. Considering such a
case, are you shifting the responsibility for the act of murder away from
the murderer?
> > True is, however, that there are other options of
> >punishment, so the responsibility for the consequences of an execution
> >lie just on the executioners, and nowhere else.
> >
> Actually... it's a cause-effect principle. The consequences of executing
> a proven murderer... lie just on the act of the murderer... and nowhere
> else. Since without that murder... your entire 'theory' is moot.
Theoretically there is a narrow scope of murders when the DP should be an
option. The clear consequence thereof is that the act of murder does not
constitute the reason to make the step from imprisonment to the DP. This
reason is rather found in subjective terms as estimations of aggravating
circumstances. Of course the estimating/judging instance is responsible
for their spoken sentence, and not the sentenced.
> My problem with all of your arguments against the DP, is that they
> always try to SHIFT the burden of guilt from the murderer to society,
> when it is obvious that the acts of murderers create the DP. Since
> without any murders, there would be no DP for murder. Without
> murder... there could not even possibly be a punishment for murder.
> And that's not an opinion... but an irrefutable logical deduction from the
> principles of cause-effect. Why not argue your opposition to the DP
> in more reasonable terms? Instead of BLAMING society for the DP,
> admit that the murderer is responsible for his acts, and find other
> ways to oppose the DP... rather than expect anyone to believe that
> the 'blame' for the execution... lies on the executioners?
Well, I presented the case of Christina Riggs to you, remember? A most
depressive woman, who was in deepest remorse and who was in view of her
depressions barely culpable at all, was executed. The fact that you are
content with making her responsible for executing her, while murderers of
some orders of magnitude greater a culpability are sentenced to prison
terms, marks the weakness of your standpoint. Answer if you can.
> Even your
> 'equity' argument is much better than trying to place the 'blame' for the
> existence of the DP on the executioners.
No, no, no. I happen to place the responsibility of a PARTICULAR death
sentence on the PARTICULAR sentencing instance, not the general existence
of the DP. If jury and court ignore the mitigating circumstances
characterizing the deed of Christina Riggs then this instances bear the
responsibility for their judgement and not the condemned.
Klaun
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:p233qvgtd7ot3gfl2...@4ax.com...
I certainly do.
I actually believe that the sorrow of either family should not interfere in
the process of justice. It is a private matter, contrary to a trial that is
a public process involving society.
Of course, it is impossible to totally forbid the victim's family to speak
their sorrow, but, as you understood yourself, the risk of taking this view
is to transform justice into revenge and I don't believe that this should be
the purpose of a trial.
As regards the murderer's family, their input in the trial is to enlight
something of the personality of the murderer, to try and make him appear as
a human instead of the monster many could believe he is. They should also
try and help the murderer express his remorse during the trial... Whatever,
the trial, in my opinion, should not be the place to listen to the sorrow of
the murderer's family, that's my point.
The last thing I try to say, is that the sentence should not create an
additional sorrow to either of those families. On that aspect, I believe
that the death penalty can potentially create an additional sorrow for the
murderer's family, especially in the many cases (in the US) when this
penalty is imposed on first-time offenders or on convicts sentenced to death
on the basis of shallow, or questionable, proof.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:fm14qvgvudg6g08s0...@4ax.com...
(snipped)
> >When did the Cardinal say he was Fesch's 'lover'?
> >
> When he proposed calling a Fesch BLESSED, which requires him to
> VENERATE Fesch. Which is to honor someone as sacred or
> special. In fact, one could just about call every RC Cardinal a
> murderer-lover... since it's their 'job' to love murderers. Lustiger
> is especially in a loving mood toward Fesch, which is a change from
> most Cardinals being in a loving mood toward younger boys.
Then it's certainly a great progress!
I however must correct (or precise) a fact: Lustiger proposed that Fesch be
beatified, not sanctified. I understand from the rules of the Roman Catholic
Church, that one condition for this is the existence of a miracle. Fesch's
conversion might be considered as one.
It wouldn't be the first time, besides, that a (religious or not) human
entity honours someone in spite of reprehensible acts made by that person.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:mtv2qv0ne1scrblat...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:19:43 +0200, Clown <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
(snipped)
> My problem with all of your arguments against the DP, is that they
> always try to SHIFT the burden of guilt from the murderer to society,
> when it is obvious that the acts of murderers create the DP.
The acts of murderers create a grief and an injustice that needs to be
repaired. They do not create the death penalty. If you want to use the word
"creation", you can say that the death penalty is a creation of society or
of lawmakers. Not of murderers.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:d0sopvc36i7n3p0mg...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:23:05 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:flb6pvo4gj6ajh1gt...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >(snipping a long self-justification for PV calling some 12 regular
>posters,
>> >plus a cardinal, "murderer lovers")
>> >
>> That particular Cardinal has most certainly stated that he is a lover of
>> the
>> murderer Jacques Fesch. In no uncertain terms.
>
>Give us a URL where he has stated this "in no uncertain terms". I trust it
>will be easier for me to give a URL in which you called another poster a
>zoophile, "in no uncertain terms".
>
I believe that you provided just such a URL... and even asserted that he
was 'moral' for hoping to elevate a murderer to being refered to as BLESSED
by millions of people. That's demonstrating a love for that murderer IN NO
UNCERTAIN TERMS. That would be YOUR WORDS in --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
PV
>Euro (Buridan's ass)
>
>(remaining lies snipped)
'rote' insult. Since there is not a single lie in what you clipped. And in fact,
you generally clip because you CANNOT HANDLE the spanking I
administer to you. But just so everyone knows -- this is what you clipped
when you became frightened by my exposure of you being a 'vile and
insane' murderer lover --
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:fcp8qv4gub39bo41p...@4ax.com...
You're not answering me... And, of course, you once again twist my words in
order to produce a deliberately false report on what I wrote.
I hence must repeat: You have stated "That particular Cardinal has most
certainly stated that he is a lover of the murderer Jacques Fesch. In no
uncertain terms".
I have asked you to give a URL where Cardinal Lustiger has stated this "in
no uncertain terms". If you're not able to give factual proof of what you
advance, you ought at least to have the honesty to regognise that you lied.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Don't be absurd... they are MURDERERS... And any expression which presumes
that they retain EVERY 'human right' that a non-murderer holds is stupendously
stupid, IMHO, and an expression of pity for that murderer. Making such a
presumption, the DIFFERENCE which rational people (those not murderer lovers)
recognize exists in the 'human rights' of murderers and non-murderers, is a
demonstration of pity from anyone who believes that there is NO DIFFERENCE
in the 'human rights' of murderers and 'non-murderers.' I am not saying that you
personally cannot hold 'pity' for murderers. Shit... you can do anything you wish,
since I am not your judge. I am saying that you need to realize that such 'pity'
implies a deep connection to 'human rights.' You expect that 'pity' you hold
to provide the SAME 'human rights' to murderers as those 'human rights' that
non-murderers hold. Thus 'human rights' DOES have something to do with
'pity' expressed for a murderer. It can operate to provide a particular 'human
right' to a murderer that does not belong to the murderer any longer, having
committed and been convicted of murder, if expressed in that manner.
In a nutshell... Human rights as a 'concept' does not involve 'pity.' But finding
no DIFFERENCE in 'human rights' between murderers and non-murderers is
an expression of 'pity' for murderers in the belief that the differences we know
exist, should not exist... because of that 'pity.' Murderers LOSE some 'human
rights' when they murder... not believing they do, is the essence of an expression
of 'pity' for such a murderer.
>> > Besides, victims do actually deserve pity and
>> >compassion, and that in no way encompasses murderers being executed.
>> >
>> Tell that to your MESSIAH... because he claims that murder victims deserve
>> NOTHING... they are DEAD... and cannot be.. in his words -- "The dead
>> cannot be helped, 'honoured', shamed, libelled, hurt in any way." And --
>
>I have no Messiah, and your rantings doesn't constitute a reply, or even a
>disagreement, with my point. If you have something to tell to Desmond, I
>would suggest you do it yourself.
>
I always tell Desmond how disgusting I find him, sport. That doesn't change the
fact that he is your MESSIAH.
However, I have no idea what you are raving about in respect to your comment..
which is framed as an axiom - but is another demonstration of your abysmal ignorance,
and your pseudo-religious beliefs, which have no logical meaning, thus deserved
of nothing but ridicule. Your 'point' is in fact a worthless platitude to victims,
and then some sort of pronouncement you believe that God whispered in your ear,
that 'pity' for the victim by 'definition' plays no role in the possible execution of
a murderer. Yet, you certainly try to argue that 'pity' for the murderer play a
role so large as to prohibit the execution of any murderer. That sounds very
hypocritical to me. You try to DEFINE the role that 'pity' must play, to the
exclusion of every other opinion to the contrary. I do not hold that 'pity' for the
victim should form a part of justice for the murderer in the U.S. DP. But one
cannot state that... as you have tried to do, as an axiom of some sort of truth.
Many feel that 'pity' for the victim DOES encompass the possibility of a murderer
being executed... and you intend to disenfranchise every human who feels that
way.. presuming that YOUR VIEW has been spoken to you by GOD. Listen
closely.... and repeat after me -- I AM NOT GOD. -- BTW.. Neither is
Desmond... although you think he is.
>(remaining snipped)
>
We all know what that means... euro couldn't handle the words.
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:f7ibqv8b0hbgc5s63...@4ax.com...
The one who is absurd here is you. Sorry for being so frank... but it's high
time you realized.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>A Planet 'I Have Hid [sic]' Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote ...
>
>>>> I keep telling you Klaun, you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> The DP is an element of the US law. If not, perhaps you can explain to
>>>> me...to us...to all of us.... why is was not specifically forbidden when
>>>> the US Bill of Rights was written?
>
>>>Neither was slavery, you fucking dipshitted, sister-shagging moron.
>
>> LOL... That from the guy who spit in the face of MLK.
>
>Still not worked out past tenses, FuckWit ? Ho, ho, ho ...
>
Poor Desmond... again reduced to the role of a pedant to hide from his
racism. To see Desmond spit in the face of MLK... see
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_1.html
PV
>
>--
>Desmond 'Hey.. that's how I get my jollies' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
Not at all... I find some evil in the killing of any human... thus it is impossible
to 'like the DP.' If it were not for murder, it would be impossible for me to
support the DP. Which is why my support for the DP would be severely
tested, and I do believe I could no longer support the concept if used to
execute non-murderers, such as child-rapists, until or if the SCOTUS ruled
such executions to be cruel and unusual punishment, and a return was made
to only executing a select few capital murderers. But in your argument you
are presuming that every time I oppose (in my mind) the execution of a
murderer, that is shifting the responsibility for the murder away from the
murderer... and that's utter nonsense. Since I have ALWAYS argued that
ONLY the MURDERER, in every instance is RESPONSIBLE for the
murder they commit. It is impossible to 'shift the blame.' But it is certainly
possible to believe that the 'blame' does not demand the DP, considering
the circumstances of the murder, and the past behavior of the murderer.
BLAME is an ABSOLUTE. The murderer is 100% responsible in blame.
A murderer, who has just been released from prison after serving a sentence
for a murder, who murders five teenagers in a Wendy's robbery to 'eliminate'
all witnesses assumes 100% of the blame for those murders. A brother
who murders his own brother in a drunken fight, assumes 100% of the
blame for that murder. But the blame in the first, would almost certainly
find in my mind a reason for the use of the DP, while in the second case,
it would not.
>> > True is, however, that there are other options of
>> >punishment, so the responsibility for the consequences of an execution
>> >lie just on the executioners, and nowhere else.
>> >
>> Actually... it's a cause-effect principle. The consequences of executing
>> a proven murderer... lie just on the act of the murderer... and nowhere
>> else. Since without that murder... your entire 'theory' is moot.
>
>Theoretically there is a narrow scope of murders when the DP should be an
>option. The clear consequence thereof is that the act of murder does not
>constitute the reason to make the step from imprisonment to the DP. This
>reason is rather found in subjective terms as estimations of aggravating
>circumstances. Of course the estimating/judging instance is responsible
>for their spoken sentence, and not the sentenced.
>
Again ... I simply do not understand the point you are trying to make.
You use the word 'theoretically' as if it forms some sort of barrier.
Although I agree that 'theoretically' and 'practically'... since I certainly
believe there is a 'narrow scope' of the murderers we consider for execution.
Your second sentence is simply your opinion... neatly disproved as any
kind of factual observation, by stating MY opinion that the particular act
of murder and an examination of the previous behavior of the murderer
CAN constitute such a reason. You then go on to build upon that premise
which actually only evolved from your opinion, rather than any fact.
And continue to offer it as some factual conclusion.
>
>> My problem with all of your arguments against the DP, is that they
>> always try to SHIFT the burden of guilt from the murderer to society,
>> when it is obvious that the acts of murderers create the DP. Since
>> without any murders, there would be no DP for murder. Without
>> murder... there could not even possibly be a punishment for murder.
>> And that's not an opinion... but an irrefutable logical deduction from the
>> principles of cause-effect. Why not argue your opposition to the DP
>> in more reasonable terms? Instead of BLAMING society for the DP,
>> admit that the murderer is responsible for his acts, and find other
>> ways to oppose the DP... rather than expect anyone to believe that
>> the 'blame' for the execution... lies on the executioners?
>
>Well, I presented the case of Christina Riggs to you, remember? A most
>depressive woman, who was in deepest remorse and who was in view of her
>depressions barely culpable at all, was executed. The fact that you are
>content with making her responsible for executing her, while murderers of
>some orders of magnitude greater a culpability are sentenced to prison
>terms, marks the weakness of your standpoint. Answer if you can.
>
I have answered it on a number of occasions. I opposed her execution,
but opposing it, does not demand I oppose the concept of the DP. The
fact that those I find MORE deserving of the DP, than she was, who were
not executed, has no meaning in the argument of supporting the DP. Since
supporting that concept does not demand that I support every use of it,
or oppose every non-use of it. Just as supporting my form of government,
does not mean I must support every act it takes, or oppose every act it
does not take. Taking your 'argument' to its next conclusion, implies
that if a murderer I personally believe should be executed is not... that I
must then support the execution of EVERY murderer. It's illogical to
frame support for a CONCEPT, with the belief that one must support
EVERY application of that concept, or one must TOTALLY reject that
concept. Which is what you imply. One can certainly support a concept,
even realizing that its every result will not always be in agreement with
how one views that concept.
Given the fact that Christina Riggs WAS a murderer, if I were to oppose
the concept of the DP, simply because I disagreed with her execution,
doing so would also demand that I accept no longer executing ANY
murderer. They are linked together in an absolute sense, and that linkage
determines how I view the entire concept. So I cannot accept abandoning
the DP as a concept as a viable choice, regardless of my belief it was not
necessary to execute Christina Riggs. As I've pointed out before... all
killing has some 'evil' in it... but I find that the DP, even one that executes
many murderers I feel are not 'necessary' to execute, is a 'lesser evil' than
permitting ALL murderers to NOT be executed.
>
>> Even your
>> 'equity' argument is much better than trying to place the 'blame' for the
>> existence of the DP on the executioners.
>
>No, no, no. I happen to place the responsibility of a PARTICULAR death
>sentence on the PARTICULAR sentencing instance, not the general existence
>of the DP. If jury and court ignore the mitigating circumstances
>characterizing the deed of Christina Riggs then this instances bear the
>responsibility for their judgement and not the condemned.
>
But of course... the responsibility for the JUDGMENT rests in the jury and
court. But the responsibility for the MURDER will always rest with the
murderer. The 'deed of Christina Riggs' will ALWAYS be HER DEED.
That cannot be shifted elsewhere. I don't see how your comment could
provide some reason to argue the DP must be abolished. Since the
SAME conditions exist throughout the entire Justice System. People
are quite often sentenced to more lenient sentences than others might
believe they deserve, and more harsh sentences than others might believe
they deserve. But no one presumes this demands that the Justice System
be dismantled.
PV
>
>Klaun
A Planet Visitor
So you believe that NO testimony from either side, victim or murderer,
should be permitted in the sentencing phase.
>Of course, it is impossible to totally forbid the victim's family to speak
>their sorrow, but, as you understood yourself, the risk of taking this view
>is to transform justice into revenge and I don't believe that this should be
>the purpose of a trial.
>
You mean as YOU 'expressed yourself.' not me. YOU were the only who
stated that "revenge has substituted itself to justice" in such testimony. I said
in respect the testimony of the victim's family and to YOUR WORDS --
"Which I presume you would believe is 'revenge.'" Now, if you do NOT
believe that introduction of testimony from the victim's family in the sentencing
phases is that 'substituting revenge for justice,' YOU speak of... exactly
WHERE does that 'revenge' come from, which you claim substitutes
for justice? You made the claim... so WHERE does it come from?
But of course, your answer will be that you find no gradation between revenge
and justice. ho ho ho... you ignorant shit. Just as you found no gradation
between murderers and innocent slaves.
>As regards the murderer's family, their input in the trial is to enlight
>something of the personality of the murderer, to try and make him appear as
>a human instead of the monster many could believe he is. They should also
>try and help the murderer express his remorse during the trial... Whatever,
>the trial, in my opinion, should not be the place to listen to the sorrow of
>the murderer's family, that's my point.
>
So what the hell ARE you saying? Are you concluding that ONLY the
murderer's family should be able to speak in the sentencing phase?
>The last thing I try to say, is that the sentence should not create an
>additional sorrow to either of those families.
That's IMPOSSIBLE, in any sentence. And you know it. In fact,
it rather argues in favor of the DP, since one might assume that a penalty
other than the DP, would create a great deal of sorrow for the victim's
family.
> On that aspect, I believe
>that the death penalty can potentially create an additional sorrow for the
>murderer's family, especially in the many cases (in the US) when this
>penalty is imposed on first-time offenders or on convicts sentenced to death
>on the basis of shallow, or questionable, proof.
>
It is again strange that you seem to 'condemn' the victim's family for whatever
they might express, which you seem to argue is 'substituting revenge for justice'
while speaking only of the 'sorrow' of the murderer's family, presuming that
'pity' for them, SHOULD form a part of justice. Once again... the famous
'euro double-speak.'
PV
>Euro (The clone of Goebbels)
A Planet Visitor
Of course there is, euro... you just don't like what you see of yourself.
There are the facts that
1) You find it moral to elevate a murderer to being called BLESSED
by millions of people.
2) You find murderers to be just like innocent slaves.
3) You permitted BOTH murderers and innocent slaves to ROT, in
presuming doing so... would 'defend' your pseudo-morality.
4) You claim that our species makes no progress by separating
murderers from non-murderers.
5) You claimed that John Wayne Gacy has the SAME 'human rights'
as any non-criminal. The right to unlimited freedom, available to
every person not considered a criminal.
6) You proved you are an anti-Semite, having said it is "disgusting"
to comment on the fact that someone has stated that they are a
Jew.
7) You have stated that there is no gradation between murderers and
innocent slaves.
8) You have stated that 40,000 deaths annually, are insignificant when
compared to the number of murderers executed each year, calling any
such comparison, an "irrelevant comparison." Gee... all of a sudden
39,925 humans dying each year... are 'irrelevant' to you... if you can
'save' all those murderers.
9) You've contended that there is no reason for anyone to provide any
benefit for our species.
10) You stated that "legal" is not a "legal concept."
11) You stated that the Germans who supported the Nazis "may not
be the worst ones...."
12) You agree with a comment which LAUGHS at murder... finding
it reasonable to do so... if that LAUGHING is for the purpose of
a particular 'political agenda.'
13) You have pontificated in your belief in your own God-like presence,
that there is some Easter Bunny imaginary 'right to life,' that you cannot
demonstrate actually exists, except as some pathetic and meaningless
pieces of fiction written on paper.
And the list goes on...
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
That isn't what you said, dipshit. You made a very clear accusation, and you
are simply lying to try and extract yourself from your lie. Your words were --
"You will realize that Donna herself claims you called her so" And that's an
unequivocal STATEMENT of a presumed fact, which instead is simply a lie.
There is no 'may have' in your claim. But there is in Donna's comment, and in
fact I deny having done so, and unless you can demonstrate where I have, I'll call
you a liar. And I will call Donna MISTAKEN in her 'belief' using the words
'may have' that I've ever felt or stated she was a murderer lover. Unfortunately,
she is married to one... which might have left her with the impression that I see
them both as one.. and that's absurd.. since I have often referred to her as 'the
long suffering wife' of Earl. As usual.. you're simply a proven liar.
And if you think I care who 'you trust,' you're simply demonstrating the stupidity
that you are so famous for here. Since you 'trust' Desmond... who, like you, is
a murderer lover... while Donna has called Desmond OBSCENE for his laughing
at murder. A laughing that YOU defended. It you trust Donna so much... then
why are YOU not calling Desmond's LAUGHING at murder - obscene? Could
it be that your 'trust' for your MESSIAH... is greater than your 'trust' for Donna?
As for me... I also 'trust' Donna, in at least, her quite accurate identification of
Desmond's LAUGHING at murder being OBSCENE.
PV
>Euro
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>A Planet 'Destroyer of murderer lovers' Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>You will realize that Donna herself claims you called her so. I thought
>>>your post was directed to Earl. I happen to trust Donna more than you.
>
>> Actually, you really "LOVE" to lie, don't you? Since Donna herself DID NOT
>> claim I had called her so. Her words can be seen at --
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3f8c48c9%240%247589%2479c14f64%40nan-newsreader-03.noos.net
>> And she did not CLAIM any such thing.
>
>Nor did she agree with you when you stamped your foot and called me names.
Glad you agree that your disciple, euro, is a liar. However, she certainly
called you 'names,' Desmond. One has only to examine her words, which
unlike you... I do not forge of another. Of course, you probably don't
consider being called OBSCENE, actually being 'called a name.' See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3f475389%240%247485%2479c14f64%40nan-newsreader-02.noos.net
>She agreed that the Ira Einhorn case wasn't a death penalty case ... but
>then, as I never claimed that it was, that sort of makes you look like a
>rather uneducated, classless peasant.
Actually, it makes you look like the 'ignorant fuck' that I called you... and
Donna stated -- "PV is absolutely right in this case." That is not the first
time that an abolitionist has stated I was 'right.' You've done so, as well.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3db16c2a%240%249083%2479c14f64%40nan-newsreader-03.noos.net
LOL... Desmond provides the 'nails for his coffin.' Thank you, Desmond. See
the words from Donna... "PV is absolutely right in this case"? After I called
you, what I had found you to be?
>
>Yes ... again.
>
>- --
>Desmond "PV is right" Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>A Planet 'I Crap for "America" [sic] !' Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote ...
>
>>>> TRANSLATION ==> Damn, euro got me again with his point's designed to
>>>> ram my inconsistency's up my ass and infect me with the AIDS on his
>>>> boot!! How portentious of him, alright! I'm off to the can for another
>>>> shit, number 40 since I got up! Marie-Pascale is an understanding kinda
>>>> gal, but the smells geting to even her!
>
>>>TMI, FuckWit.
>
>> What an ignorant shit you are... especially after you and Euro have
>> exposed ALL my lie's one after the OTHER and SHOWN me to be a
>> PATHA..PATHO...PATHI ... CONSTANT liar!!
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... jump, FuckWit !!
>
One thing is for sure... I would never stoop to forgery, as you do so often.
Which makes me far, far superior to you, Desmond... And you know it.
Since that simply admits your inability to face the comment itself. How
sad -- See --
The Nameless One alternate gimmick n° 16...
== The - I never commit forgery... anyway, I never admit to it - gimmick == See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn8il3oc.565.desmond%40lievre.voute.net
Desmond's words -- "Denise, at no time have I forged a post by Drewl, or anyone
else."
Obviously... caught red-handed here and now in such a forgery. But what's new...
Desmond never has been able to 'keep his word.'
PV
>- --
>Desmond 'Dear Jesus.. help me... PV is bitch-slapping me again' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Euro <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
>> (snipping 17 K of lies previously posted on this group and on which I have
>> given due explanations at:
>> www.google.com/groups?selm=44e66b753bb7ec7a...@news.meganetnews.com
>> and snipping 5K of self-justification by PV of his previous insults
>> and various other funny things he wrote)
>>
>> Sorry, there was nothing more.
>
>There never is. :-(
>
I can see why you'd put that 'unhappy face,' on your comment, Desmond.
Since you know there is quite a bit more...for example..
Readers can see Desmond LAUGH at the murder of more than
a dozen human beings --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_100.html
Readers can see Desmond prove he is a murderer-lover, by stating
emphatically that the murderer is of more value to him than the
victim of that murderer --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_133.html
Readers can see Desmond ADMIT that he would murder more
readily than Theodore Frank would --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_4.html
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
Readers can see Desmond fight to save the life of a racist murderer --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_71.html
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
Readers can see Desmond request oral copulation from a 16-year-old
female --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_173.html
Readers can see Desmond state that he opposes ALL punishment for
all murderers --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_145.html
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
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
Readers can see Desmond WHINE that everyone is persecuting him --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_68.html
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
Poor Desmond.. more each day.. an object of pity
>- --
>Desmond (I've never seen a murderer I didn't "LOVE") Coughlan
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:22ljqv4gjosfu51un...@4ax.com...
It seems PV has much been focused on the scatologic stage lately.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:kd5jqvongd16nqm8a...@4ax.com...
You're incoherent in your conclusions. _I_ was the only who stated that
"revenge has substituted itself to justice", so I necessarily make a
difference between revenge and justice. Trials are here for serving justice,
not revenge.
> >As regards the murderer's family, their input in the trial is to enlight
> >something of the personality of the murderer, to try and make him appear
as
> >a human instead of the monster many could believe he is. They should also
> >try and help the murderer express his remorse during the trial...
Whatever,
> >the trial, in my opinion, should not be the place to listen to the sorrow
of
> >the murderer's family, that's my point.
> >
> So what the hell ARE you saying? Are you concluding that ONLY the
> murderer's family should be able to speak in the sentencing phase?
>
> >The last thing I try to say, is that the sentence should not create an
> >additional sorrow to either of those families.
>
> That's IMPOSSIBLE, in any sentence. And you know it. In fact,
> it rather argues in favor of the DP, since one might assume that a penalty
> other than the DP, would create a great deal of sorrow for the victim's
> family.
How is that? For the victim's family, what matters is that the murderer gets
a punishment. No one has ever proved that one punishment gives a better
closure than another one.
Besides, seeing how many years convicted murderers spend sometimes on death
row waiting for their execution, I doubt that death penalty can be
considered as the penalty that creates the smaller deal of sorrow for them.
> > On that aspect, I believe
> >that the death penalty can potentially create an additional sorrow for
the
> >murderer's family, especially in the many cases (in the US) when this
> >penalty is imposed on first-time offenders or on convicts sentenced to
death
> >on the basis of shallow, or questionable, proof.
> >
> It is again strange that you seem to 'condemn' the victim's family for
whatever
> they might express, which you seem to argue is 'substituting revenge for
justice'
> while speaking only of the 'sorrow' of the murderer's family, presuming
that
> 'pity' for them, SHOULD form a part of justice. Once again... the famous
> 'euro double-speak.'
Pity can be a part of justice for both the victim's and the murderer's
family. I have no difficulty with that. My point is that revenge should not
be a part of justice, and this relates mainly on the victim's family. Do you
agree that the purpose of justice is not to serve revenge? That's a question
you should reply.
> PV
>
> >Euro (The clone of Goebbels)
Ah yes, PV... one more thing: you're pitiful.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote ...
>
>>>>>> I keep telling you Klaun, you are wrong.
>
>>>>>> The DP is an element of the US law. If not, perhaps you can explain to
>>>>>> me...to us...to all of us.... why is was not specifically forbidden when
>>>>>> the US Bill of Rights was written?
>
>>>>>Neither was slavery, you fucking dipshitted, sister-shagging moron.
>
>>>> LOL... That from the guy who spit in the face of MLK.
>
>>>Still not worked out past tenses, FuckWit ? Ho, ho, ho ...
>
>> Poor Desmond... again reduced to the role of a pedant to hide from his
>
>Ah, a 'return' to the early days of the Gimmicks, as FuckWit invokes
>FuckWit Patented Gimmick (TM) N° 1, the 'you're a "pedantic" [sic] !'
>gimmick ... url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/1.html
>
LOL... Still the pedantic, eh, Desmond? Have a ball with that one, Desmond...
you need all the help you can get, given that you're really quite ignorant when it
comes to the topic of this group. I believe a great number of other posters
have mentioned that fact... and guess what? A great number of them were
abolitionists... See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_10.html
>{ snip FuckWit throwing in an invocation of ol' 166, to try to distract
> attention from the hammering that he's suffering at everyone's hands:
> url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/166.html }
>
Poor Desmond.. still unable to loose himself from the shackles of obscenity, as
well. Realizing that those are all he has. It is never too late to give up your
prejudices, Desmond. Shed those shackles of racism, and hatred expressed,
as Donna remarked... in your obscenities. If you must argue abolition, do not
argue it from the pit of anger, hate and obscenities that seems to consume you.
Do not LAUGH at murder...see --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_100.html
And, please... please find it in your heart to weep for the victims,
every now and again... See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Weep_for_victims.html
You'll feel calmer and more serene, if you do.
PV
>- --
>Desmond (John Donne... WHO???) Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote ...
>
>>>>>You will realize that Donna herself claims you called her so. I thought
>>>>>your post was directed to Earl. I happen to trust Donna more than you.
>
>>>> Actually, you really "LOVE" to lie, don't you? Since Donna herself DID NOT
>>>> claim I had called her so. Her words can be seen at --
>>>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3f8c48c9%240%247589%2479c14f64%40nan-newsreader-03.noos.net
>>>> And she did not CLAIM any such thing.
>
>>>Nor did she agree with you when you stamped your foot and called me names.
>
>> Glad you agree that I'm a lying fuckwit, Desi. In fact, I'm a retarded,
>> fuckwitted hypocrite.
>
>We know, FuckWit ... we know ...
>
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/DCSSTR/fuckwit_admits.html
And we know that you don't complain when murderers are murdered. Don't we? See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_134.html
PV
>
>- --
>Desmond 'hey... why complain... murder is better than the DP' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
'rote' insult. Avoiding the evidence that euro is distorting Donna's words.
The difference, euro... the difference you find between murderers and
innocent slaves? Since you complained when I stated that you found no
difference between them. I'm still waiting for you to tell me the difference
you find between them.
My question is -- what 'difference,' not 'similarity,' do you find
between murderers and innocent slaves, if they are 'different' to you? And
obviously given any differences you might state...which of them -- irrespective
of your clumsy claim that they 'both' hold exactly the same Easter Bunny
imaginary 'human rights' -- do you find more valuable for mankind, because
of such a difference? Or is there no 'value' whatsoever to any of us?
I believe this question is directly on-topic in respect to any argument of the DP.
If you believe it is not... all you have to say are the words -- 'finding any
difference between murderers and slaves is not a topic connected
to the DP.'
A Planet Visitor
Of course they are...and PITY should not be substituted for Justice,
either. Or is it okay to have pity on the murderer... or allow the
murderers family to express pity for themselves and the murderer?
In any case... revenge is not a part of finding guilt or innocence... but
it is certainly evident in the punishment provided after a finding of guilty.
All punishment contains an element of 'revenge' taken by society.
That's simply a fact. Now you may state that the victim's family should
not speak for 'revenge,' and you'd be right, IMHO. But do not become
confused that if you presume 'justice' is not only in the finding of
guilt or innocence, but in the penalty given, revenge plays a part...
by definition of the word, and the fact that society intends to punish
the offender.
>> >As regards the murderer's family, their input in the trial is to enlight
>> >something of the personality of the murderer, to try and make him appear
>as
>> >a human instead of the monster many could believe he is. They should also
>> >try and help the murderer express his remorse during the trial...
>Whatever,
>> >the trial, in my opinion, should not be the place to listen to the sorrow
>of
>> >the murderer's family, that's my point.
>> >
>> So what the hell ARE you saying? Are you concluding that ONLY the
>> murderer's family should be able to speak in the sentencing phase?
>>
>> >The last thing I try to say, is that the sentence should not create an
>> >additional sorrow to either of those families.
>>
>> That's IMPOSSIBLE, in any sentence. And you know it. In fact,
>> it rather argues in favor of the DP, since one might assume that a penalty
>> other than the DP, would create a great deal of sorrow for the victim's
>> family.
>
>How is that? For the victim's family, what matters is that the murderer gets
>a punishment.
Bzzzzzz... wrong answer. You are not God... deciding what does and does
not MATTER for the victim's family. Please stop being a hypocrite and
presume you can decide all matters for everyone. Each of us have different
emotions and different things matter more or less for each of us.
> No one has ever proved that one punishment gives a better
>closure than another one.
No one has ever proved it doesn't. The fact is there is no such thing
as 'one closure fits all.' All it really takes, if you wish to presume that
closure determines the penalty, is for one family to insist that the DP
provides them closure, to justify the DP as a sentence. Since denying
that penalty is denying that closure, if you presume that closure forms
a part of the justice system. I don't.
>Besides, seeing how many years convicted murderers spend sometimes on death
>row waiting for their execution, I doubt that death penalty can be
>considered as the penalty that creates the smaller deal of sorrow for them.
>
So you would shorten the time... and eliminate some due process... is that
it?
>> > On that aspect, I believe
>> >that the death penalty can potentially create an additional sorrow for
>the
>> >murderer's family, especially in the many cases (in the US) when this
>> >penalty is imposed on first-time offenders or on convicts sentenced to
>death
>> >on the basis of shallow, or questionable, proof.
>> >
>> It is again strange that you seem to 'condemn' the victim's family for
>whatever
>> they might express, which you seem to argue is 'substituting revenge for
>justice'
>> while speaking only of the 'sorrow' of the murderer's family, presuming
>that
>> 'pity' for them, SHOULD form a part of justice. Once again... the famous
>> 'euro double-speak.'
>
>Pity can be a part of justice for both the victim's and the murderer's
>family.
Whatever are you talking about? You presume to 'decide' for the world
that 'revenge' cannot substitute for justice... and you now state in your
God-like insight that 'pity' CAN substitute for justice. You seem to
always be pushing the envelope of illogical thought. And creating those
crazy conclusions you presume to offer as fact... which are total nonsense.
You reject those facts you don't 'like,' and attempt to make your 'opinions'
appear as facts.
> I have no difficulty with that.
Tough... I have great difficulty with it. The word 'pity' for murderers is repugnant
to me. It contains a meaning of condoning murder to a certain extent to me.
Only MERCY, as reasoned by the circumstances of the crime can be seen as
possible. If you want to interchange 'pity' for 'mercy,' be my guest. But that
mercy is expressed only in the sense of the sentence given to the murderer, related
to the maximum sentence for that crime... the difference is an expression of
mercy by society. If you want to call it pity, it doesn't bother me at all, even
if I do not see it as pity, nor will I ever see society expressing mercy, based
upon the circumstances of the crime and the behavior of the offender, as an
expression of pity. Pity... to me.. has no place in the justice system. That's
why Justitia is blindfolded, IMHO.
However, there IS an element of revenge in EVERY penalty for EVERY crime.
It cannot be removed, because we take away a part of a person's life, for various
lengths of time, even without the DP. We do so as much to PUNISH, as to
incapacitate for that given time. We remove part of the criminal's life, for that
period of time... in 'revenge' for the act he has committed, regardless of any other
considerations, which of course, exist. You may not like it... but the criminal
justice system collapses without it. While there is no DEMAND for pity...
especially for a murderer. One can (I don't) make perhaps the BEST CASE
for the DP, if they stand on a strict 'revenge' motive in the use of the DP. It's
clear... it's consistence... and it's hard to deny... other than attacking the
retentionist as 'being evil' because they are only seeking 'revenge.' But that's
what the criminal justice system does in part of every sentence for every crime.
I fully support the meaning of 'revenge' in ALL punishment.. since punishment
cannot exist without that meaning behind it. We do not punish for NO
REASON... thus 'revenge' must be part of that reason. I do not believe
the purpose of the DP is 'revenge,' but I would certainly not deny that,
as in all penalties... it must exist. And the victim speaks for that 'revenge,'
through the words society imparts to that victim, unable to speak for
himself. And ONLY SOCIETY... not the family, not the friends, no
one... can speak for that victim except society through its laws... since
victims of murder cannot speak for themselves.
> My point is that revenge should not
>be a part of justice, and this relates mainly on the victim's family.
Your point -- makes no sense whatsoever.
> Do you
>agree that the purpose of justice is not to serve revenge? That's a question
>you should reply.
>
See above. All punishment contains an element of society exacting 'revenge'
on the perpetrator, by removing some basic liberties for some time, which
have more than the purpose of 'temporary incapacitation' 'deterrence to
others,' or 'rehabilitation.' Do you really need the definition of 'revenge'?
In any case -- it is --
-----------------------------------------------------
re·venge
re·venge [ri vénj]
vt (past re·venged, past participle re·venged, present participle re·veng·ing, 3rd
person present singular re·veng·es)
1. secure revenge for somebody: to avenge yourself or somebody else who has been
harmed
2. punish somebody for harm done: to punish somebody in retaliation for harm or
injury done
n
1. something done in retaliation: something done to get even with somebody else who
has caused harm
2. desire for retaliation: the desire or urge to get even with somebody
3. retaliatory punishment: the punishing of somebody in retaliation for harm done
[14th century. From Old French revengier , from vengier “to avenge,” from late Latin
vindicare (see vindicate).]
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------
See definition 2.? "punish somebody for harm done: to punish somebody in retaliation
for harm or injury done "
So... Do you believe that punishment for all crimes should be abolished? That's a
question you should reply.
PV
>> PV
>>
>> >Euro (The clone of Goebbels)
>
>Ah yes, PV... one more thing: you're pitiful.
>
While you find no difference between murderers and innocent slaves... and that's
more than pitiful... that's rather evil... IMHO.
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:01prqvokkg2d0uc2k...@4ax.com...
I didn't distort anything. I'm not like you, who spend your time forging
lies from others' clear statements.
Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:rdlrqv0hs13q0stkk...@4ax.com...
Pity should not subsitute for justice, but pity does play a role in justice.
Or then, what do mitigating circumstances stand for?
Do you mean that something else can matter? What then?
> > No one has ever proved that one punishment gives a better
> >closure than another one.
>
> No one has ever proved it doesn't. The fact is there is no such thing
> as 'one closure fits all.' All it really takes, if you wish to presume
that
> closure determines the penalty, is for one family to insist that the DP
> provides them closure, to justify the DP as a sentence. Since denying
> that penalty is denying that closure, if you presume that closure forms
> a part of the justice system. I don't.
This is why I don't believe the objective of justice, or of any justice
punishment, should be to give closure. This is why I also wrote, above, that
what matters is that the murderer gets a punishment. If victims' families
want anything else, they are wrong, in my opinion.
> >Besides, seeing how many years convicted murderers spend sometimes on
death
> >row waiting for their execution, I doubt that death penalty can be
> >considered as the penalty that creates the smaller deal of sorrow for
them.
> >
> So you would shorten the time... and eliminate some due process... is that
> it?
No. I would abolish death penalty, so that victims' families are sure, when
the convict is sentenced to jail for any period, that justice has been
given. Any additional jail sentence would come as a complement to the first
sentence, and not as _the_ sentence that provides closure. Finally, with
death penalty being abolished, victims' families would not even dream of
seeing the murderer of their relative be killed and witnessing the
operation - a quite macabre show in my view.
> >> > On that aspect, I believe
> >> >that the death penalty can potentially create an additional sorrow for
> >the
> >> >murderer's family, especially in the many cases (in the US) when this
> >> >penalty is imposed on first-time offenders or on convicts sentenced to
> >death
> >> >on the basis of shallow, or questionable, proof.
> >> >
> >> It is again strange that you seem to 'condemn' the victim's family for
> >whatever
> >> they might express, which you seem to argue is 'substituting revenge
for
> >justice'
> >> while speaking only of the 'sorrow' of the murderer's family, presuming
> >that
> >> 'pity' for them, SHOULD form a part of justice. Once again... the
famous
> >> 'euro double-speak.'
> >
> >Pity can be a part of justice for both the victim's and the murderer's
> >family.
>
> Whatever are you talking about? You presume to 'decide' for the world
> that 'revenge' cannot substitute for justice... and you now state in your
> God-like insight that 'pity' CAN substitute for justice.
As I wrote above, mitigating circumstances are a legal concept that is meant
to give a place to pity in justice. There is nothing of this kind for
revenge.
> > I have no difficulty with that.
>
> Tough... I have great difficulty with it. The word 'pity' for murderers
is repugnant
> to me.
I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
families. After all, murder is a tragic event for them too.
Euro
(stopping here, as I usually do after finding the first distortion of facts
or of quotations in PV's postings - I admit this time it has come late,
though).
A Planet Visitor
Mitigating circumstances are just that... CIRCUMSTANCES
that tend to mitigate. Pity is that which would be expressed in
the ABSENCE of such circumstances. To call mitigating
circumstances -- pity, is as absurd as calling the difference between
the penalties for rape and murder -- pity.
That's what I'm trying to explain to you. I can no more say what matters,
than YOU can say what matters. We are not God... either of us. And
what matters to each of them, is not ours to judge or evaluate. We can
only say that 'things matter to them.' And those 'things' can be ANYTHING.
Not simply limited to 'punishment,' as you implied, or the 'degree of the
punishment' as some sort of absolute. The comment went like this -- You
expect to decide what matter for them. I tell you that you cannot do so
because you cannot decide for them. You say - then you tell me what they
should decide matters. While I have just told you that NO ONE can decide
for them.
>> > No one has ever proved that one punishment gives a better
>> >closure than another one.
>>
>> No one has ever proved it doesn't. The fact is there is no such thing
>> as 'one closure fits all.' All it really takes, if you wish to presume
>> that
>> closure determines the penalty, is for one family to insist that the DP
>> provides them closure, to justify the DP as a sentence. Since denying
>> that penalty is denying that closure, if you presume that closure forms
>> a part of the justice system. I don't.
>
>This is why I don't believe the objective of justice, or of any justice
>punishment, should be to give closure. This is why I also wrote, above, that
>what matters is that the murderer gets a punishment. If victims' families
>want anything else, they are wrong, in my opinion.
>
I never said that closure, or pity, or vengeance expressed by the family
of either side should be considered in justice. You may hold any opinion
you wish... but your 'opinion' seems to be not very well expressed or
formulated to me. Rather it seems to drift about aimlessly. I had the
impression that you were concerned with arguing closure, since you
said "No one has ever proved that one punishment gives a better
closure than another one." And I replied "if you presume that closure
forms a part of the justice system. I don't." Sometimes, euro, your
'arguments' are not easy to follow, because they often change in mid-stream.
>> >Besides, seeing how many years convicted murderers spend sometimes on
>> >death
>> >row waiting for their execution, I doubt that death penalty can be
>> >considered as the penalty that creates the smaller deal of sorrow for
>> >them.
>> >
>> So you would shorten the time... and eliminate some due process... is that
>> it?
>
>No. I would abolish death penalty, so that victims' families are sure, when
>the convict is sentenced to jail for any period, that justice has been
>given.
STOP!!!! Stop deciding for the FAMILIES! You cannot do so, nor
does it have ANY meaning within the concept of justice. You may have
an opinion on abolishing the DP, but STOP bringing in arguments which
you offer as dogma, and those that have no meaning in respect to the
concept of justice. I find you claiming the families have nothing to do
with justice, and then you argue here that they do. If they have nothing
to do with justice then do not keep referring to such a connection.
If you think that they DO have something to do with justice, then
provide what you mean in specific terms rather than the specious and
irrelevant dogma you seem to enjoy spreading about.
> Any additional jail sentence would come as a complement to the first
>sentence, and not as _the_ sentence that provides closure.
As I said...and said...and said... "if you presume that closure forms
a part of the justice system. I don't." If you DO believe that closure
forms a part of justice... then YOU cannot presume you are GOD,
and decide what IS closure for each of the families of the victims.
Of course, you CAN decide on closure for all of the families of
the victims... IF you presume you are God. Which seems to be
the case here.
> Finally, with
>death penalty being abolished, victims' families would not even dream of
>seeing the murderer of their relative be killed and witnessing the
>operation - a quite macabre show in my view.
>
Why do you ALWAYS try to express what victims' families
would 'dream of' or not 'dream of'? What gives you the RIGHT to
speak for what they feel? And then you wonder why I insult you
at times. euro, you simply cannot make statements such as you
make, and presume you have peered into the hearts and minds of
every victims' family and can now tell them HOW they SHOULD
feel. I always feel... and I am certain in my mind of this feeling....
that you always try to diminish what the victims' family SHOULD
feel. You always try to LIMIT the pain and anguish they might
feel.. almost as if you are saying ==> enough already... he's dead...
get over it,,, you're just looking for revenge now <==. While at the
same time, you always EMPHASIZE the pain and anguish felt
by the murderers family. As if the entire justice system SHOULD
bow down before them... and pity the poor murderer for their
sake, forget that the murderer murdered... because it might cause
the murderer's family some grief.
You have your view... others have theirs. I am gratified however,
that you diid simply express at the very end that how you see
an execution is "your view," and not another of your 'axioms from
God.'
>> >> > On that aspect, I believe
>> >> >that the death penalty can potentially create an additional sorrow for
>> >the
>> >> >murderer's family, especially in the many cases (in the US) when this
>> >> >penalty is imposed on first-time offenders or on convicts sentenced to
>> >death
>> >> >on the basis of shallow, or questionable, proof.
>> >> >
>> >> It is again strange that you seem to 'condemn' the victim's family for
>> >whatever
>> >> they might express, which you seem to argue is 'substituting revenge
>for
>> >justice'
>> >> while speaking only of the 'sorrow' of the murderer's family, presuming
>> >that
>> >> 'pity' for them, SHOULD form a part of justice. Once again... the
>famous
>> >> 'euro double-speak.'
>> >
>> >Pity can be a part of justice for both the victim's and the murderer's
>> >family.
>>
>> Whatever are you talking about? You presume to 'decide' for the world
>> that 'revenge' cannot substitute for justice... and you now state in your
>> God-like insight that 'pity' CAN substitute for justice.
>
>As I wrote above, mitigating circumstances are a legal concept
Well... I'm heartened to see you find something as a 'legal concept.'
Since you seemed to be denying that 'legal' was a 'legal concept,'
in a previous dialog regarding your absurd use of 'legal murder.'
> that is meant
>to give a place to pity in justice. There is nothing of this kind for
>revenge.
>
Umm... euro... aggravating circumstances, son. If you think that
'mitigating circumstances' are pity (they are not), then clearly
'aggravating circumstances' are the flip side... and are revenge
(again, they are not).
Mitigating circumstances (and aggravating circumstances) are used to
evaluate the different CIRCUMSTANCES which determine the amount
of the penalty that should be assessed for the crime. That penalty
ranges between the minimum and maximum, and the circumstances
determine where within that range the proper penalty should
fall. Further you confuse pity with mercy, IMHO. You may call it
whatever you wish, but mitigating circumstances (and aggravating
circumstances) strike me as nothing more than the recognition that
all crimes do not exactly demand the same penalty. They are
events that mitigate (or aggravate) rather than an expression of
pity (or revenge) in general. One thing is for sure. You will not find
the word 'pity,' (or I am quite sure 'revenge') in ANY CRIMINAL
STATUTE when speaking of the penalty that is assessed for the crime.
Thus, it's all opinion as to what YOU THINK pity (or revenge) is.
>> > I have no difficulty with that.
>>
>> Tough... I have great difficulty with it. The word 'pity' for murderers
>> is repugnant
>> to me.
>
>I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
>families.
What are you talking about? Your words above "Pity can be a part of
justice...:" Obviously.... justice is ONLY exacted on the murderer.
This is the part of your arguments that so distresses me... the convoluted
reasoning, and often conflicting comments, even within the same post.
> After all, murder is a tragic event for them too.
>
Once again... you insert a belief in 'pity for the families' of murderers.
I find it ludicrous, emotional, irrelevant, and biased in favor of the
murderer, while giving absolutely no such emotional or biased
context to the feelings of the victims' family... instead, I see you
trying to deny those feelings have the slightest relevance to
justice. See above.
PV
>Euro
>
>(stopping here, as I usually do after finding the first distortion of facts
>or of quotations in PV's postings - I admit this time it has come late,
>though).
And then you wonder why I insult you. Don't take it personally, euro.
But I insult your INTELLIGENCE, and not you. And I do so, because
it becomes an essential part of the dialog between us. Were I not to
do so, it might lead others to believe you have some. I need to clearly
inform them that, in general, your comments are totally devoid of any
intelligent information, and generally end with an insult, which admits
to that lack of intelligence. But thanks for proving it for me. If there
were the slightest hint of a distortion of facts or quotes in any of my
comments, it is an absolute given that you would not clip a single word,
but would hold it up as some sort of banner of victory. The very
fact that you clip and insult the comments only demonstrates vividly
that you could not handle the comments.
BTW -- What do you find is the difference between murderers and
innocent slaves? This has become a 'running joke' now. Since your
inability to do anything but ignore the question causes laughter
everywhere. Even from your 'friends.'
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:8pk3rvoc5sv16iekm...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:22:06 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(long snipped)
> >
> >Pity should not subsitute for justice, but pity does play a role in
justice.
> >Or then, what do mitigating circumstances stand for?
> >
> Mitigating circumstances are just that... CIRCUMSTANCES
> that tend to mitigate. Pity is that which would be expressed in
> the ABSENCE of such circumstances.
What are mitigating circumstances based on, if not on pity. How does a judge
consider the possibility to give mitigating circumstances?
> To call mitigating
> circumstances -- pity, is as absurd as calling the difference between
> the penalties for rape and murder -- pity.
The latter is absurd, indeed, the former isn't. Comparing both, besides, is
equally absurd.
> >> Bzzzzzz... wrong answer. You are not God... deciding what does and
does
> >> not MATTER for the victim's family. Please stop being a hypocrite and
> >> presume you can decide all matters for everyone. Each of us have
> >> different
> >> emotions and different things matter more or less for each of us.
> >
> >Do you mean that something else can matter? What then?
> >
> That's what I'm trying to explain to you. I can no more say what matters,
> than YOU can say what matters. We are not God... either of us. And
> what matters to each of them, is not ours to judge or evaluate. We can
> only say that 'things matter to them.' And those 'things' can be
ANYTHING.
> Not simply limited to 'punishment,' as you implied, or the 'degree of the
> punishment' as some sort of absolute. The comment went like this -- You
> expect to decide what matter for them. I tell you that you cannot do so
> because you cannot decide for them. You say - then you tell me what they
> should decide matters. While I have just told you that NO ONE can decide
> for them.
I admit your argument here. But then, that being admitted, you will probably
agree with me that justice should not necessarily bring the victims'
families what they expect. Once again, as I often stressed, justice is not
revenge.
> >> > No one has ever proved that one punishment gives a better
> >> >closure than another one.
> >>
> >> No one has ever proved it doesn't. The fact is there is no such thing
> >> as 'one closure fits all.' All it really takes, if you wish to presume
> >> that
> >> closure determines the penalty, is for one family to insist that the DP
> >> provides them closure, to justify the DP as a sentence. Since denying
> >> that penalty is denying that closure, if you presume that closure forms
> >> a part of the justice system. I don't.
> >
> >This is why I don't believe the objective of justice, or of any justice
> >punishment, should be to give closure. This is why I also wrote, above,
that
> >what matters is that the murderer gets a punishment. If victims' families
> >want anything else, they are wrong, in my opinion.
> >
> I never said that closure, or pity, or vengeance expressed by the family
> of either side should be considered in justice. You may hold any opinion
> you wish... but your 'opinion' seems to be not very well expressed or
> formulated to me. Rather it seems to drift about aimlessly. I had the
> impression that you were concerned with arguing closure, since you
> said "No one has ever proved that one punishment gives a better
> closure than another one." And I replied "if you presume that closure
> forms a part of the justice system. I don't." Sometimes, euro, your
> 'arguments' are not easy to follow, because they often change in
mid-stream.
My arguments don't change in the mid-stream. As I wrote above, "No one has
ever proved that one punishment gives a better closure than another one".
Contrary to what you understood, this was to make it clear that I didn't
intend to argue closure, as it is not relevant in the debate on the penalty.
I also wrote that "what matters is that the murderer gets a punishment" -
i.e., not closure. My argument is clear and never changed throughout the
thread above.
> >> >Besides, seeing how many years convicted murderers spend sometimes on
> >> >death
> >> >row waiting for their execution, I doubt that death penalty can be
> >> >considered as the penalty that creates the smaller deal of sorrow for
> >> >them.
> >> >
> >> So you would shorten the time... and eliminate some due process... is
that
> >> it?
> >
> >No. I would abolish death penalty, so that victims' families are sure,
when
> >the convict is sentenced to jail for any period, that justice has been
> >given.
>
> STOP!!!! Stop deciding for the FAMILIES! You cannot do so, nor
> does it have ANY meaning within the concept of justice. You may have
> an opinion on abolishing the DP, but STOP bringing in arguments which
> you offer as dogma, and those that have no meaning in respect to the
> concept of justice. I find you claiming the families have nothing to do
> with justice, and then you argue here that they do. If they have nothing
> to do with justice then do not keep referring to such a connection.
> If you think that they DO have something to do with justice, then
> provide what you mean in specific terms rather than the specious and
> irrelevant dogma you seem to enjoy spreading about.
You're confusing everything here. I made a claim of principle, that families
have nothing to do with justice. However, they are necessarily connected
with the final statement given by justice. They necessarily react to this,
don't you think so? How many testimonies from victims' families have I read,
that said in substance that it had been difficult to wait all those years
for the implementation of an execution?
It is impossible not to draw from those testimonies a practical argument in
favour of abolition. That is what I did above.
> > Any additional jail sentence would come as a complement to the first
> >sentence, and not as _the_ sentence that provides closure.
>
> As I said...and said...and said... "if you presume that closure forms
> a part of the justice system. I don't."
I believe I made my position clear to you above, on this point.
> > Finally, with
> >death penalty being abolished, victims' families would not even dream of
> >seeing the murderer of their relative be killed and witnessing the
> >operation - a quite macabre show in my view.
> >
> Why do you ALWAYS try to express what victims' families
> would 'dream of' or not 'dream of'?
Isn't it true that many victims' families "dream of" witnessing an execution
that they keep waiting for years? Isn't it true that many actually witness
the execution?
That's not an invention from my side, but a mere remark based on what
happens regularly in the US.
> What gives you the RIGHT to
> speak for what they feel?
I don't speak for whatever they feel. I remark the way they behave, as I
wrote just above. That is not an opinion, just a conclusion drawn from usual
practice.
> >
> >As I wrote above, mitigating circumstances are a legal concept
>
> Well... I'm heartened to see you find something as a 'legal concept.'
> Since you seemed to be denying that 'legal' was a 'legal concept,'
> in a previous dialog regarding your absurd use of 'legal murder.'
As you see, one doesn't need to have the word "legal" in an expression for
this expression to be a legal concept. A law teacher could make this clear
to you. There are many legal concepts that don't have the word "legal" in
them, and besides, the expression "legal concept" is not a legal concept
itself.
> > that is meant
> >to give a place to pity in justice. There is nothing of this kind for
> >revenge.
> >
> Umm... euro... aggravating circumstances, son. If you think that
> 'mitigating circumstances' are pity (they are not), then clearly
> 'aggravating circumstances' are the flip side... and are revenge
> (again, they are not).
I wrote that they are meant to give a place to pity in justice. Once again,
if a judge decides to give mitigating circumstances, he can base his
judgement on feelings like pity. Else, how do you explain the possibility
for mentally ills to have softer penalties for similar crimes?
> Mitigating circumstances (and aggravating circumstances) are used to
> evaluate the different CIRCUMSTANCES which determine the amount
> of the penalty that should be assessed for the crime. That penalty
> ranges between the minimum and maximum, and the circumstances
> determine where within that range the proper penalty should
> fall. Further you confuse pity with mercy, IMHO. You may call it
> whatever you wish, but mitigating circumstances (and aggravating
> circumstances) strike me as nothing more than the recognition that
> all crimes do not exactly demand the same penalty. They are
> events that mitigate (or aggravate) rather than an expression of
> pity (or revenge) in general. One thing is for sure. You will not find
> the word 'pity,' (or I am quite sure 'revenge') in ANY CRIMINAL
> STATUTE when speaking of the penalty that is assessed for the crime.
> Thus, it's all opinion as to what YOU THINK pity (or revenge) is.
Not finding 'pity' in any criminal statute doesn't mean that 'pity' doesn't
play a role in some statements.
> >> > I have no difficulty with that.
> >>
> >> Tough... I have great difficulty with it. The word 'pity' for
murderers
> >> is repugnant
> >> to me.
> >
> >I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
> >families.
>
> What are you talking about? Your words above "Pity can be a part of
> justice...:" Obviously.... justice is ONLY exacted on the murderer.
> This is the part of your arguments that so distresses me... the convoluted
> reasoning, and often conflicting comments, even within the same post.
Justice concerns also the families of victims and murderers. The families of
victims because they expect justice for what their relative was exposed to,
and the family of the murderer who is often overwhelmed by what their
relative did, and risks losing this relative - in the case of a death
sentence -, thus creating an even bigger sorrow to them.
My argument is actually very easy, and I stressed it beforehand: the tears
from one side (the victims' family) cannot be compensated by the tears from
another side (the murderers' family). Thee is no contradiction, once again.
> > After all, murder is a tragic event for them too.
> >
> Once again... you insert a belief in 'pity for the families' of murderers.
> I find it ludicrous, emotional, irrelevant, and biased in favor of the
> murderer, while giving absolutely no such emotional or biased
> context to the feelings of the victims' family... instead, I see you
> trying to deny those feelings have the slightest relevance to
> justice. See above.
That's just the problem. What bove shows, is that you did not understand two
principles against the death penalty that I put forward in this thread:
1/ justice should not be revenge, hence the feelings of the victims'
families should not be instrumentalized to justify a harder penalty;
2/ justice should, on the contrary, be compassion for the murderer's family
who undergoes a big sorrow for the murder and should not undergo a bigger
sorrow by the irreparable lost of a relative.
> PV
>
> >Euro
> >
> >(stopping here, as I usually do after finding the first distortion of
facts
> >or of quotations in PV's postings - I admit this time it has come late,
> >though).
>
> And then you wonder why I insult you. Don't take it personally, euro.
> But I insult your INTELLIGENCE, and not you. And I do so, because
> it becomes an essential part of the dialog between us. Were I not to
> do so, it might lead others to believe you have some. I need to clearly
> inform them that, in general, your comments are totally devoid of any
> intelligent information, and generally end with an insult, which admits
> to that lack of intelligence. But thanks for proving it for me. If there
> were the slightest hint of a distortion of facts or quotes in any of my
> comments, it is an absolute given that you would not clip a single word,
> but would hold it up as some sort of banner of victory. The very
> fact that you clip and insult the comments only demonstrates vividly
> that you could not handle the comments.
I clipped the part following a paragraph in which you hinted that I argued
for pity for the murderers ("The word 'pity' for murderers is repugnant to
me"). That, of course, is wrong. I never argued anything such. It
constitutes a big hint of distortion of quote in this allegation, and I did
not clip it indeed. The fact I clipped the remaining only demonstrates that
I will not keep losing my time debating with someone who does not do it in
an honest way.
> BTW -- What do you find is the difference between murderers and
> innocent slaves?
I believe the difference is that one is free, and the other isn't. Oops,
that may not be the difference you thought about...
> This has become a 'running joke' now. Since your
> inability to do anything but ignore the question causes laughter
> everywhere. Even from your 'friends.'
LOL!!! Maybe the laughter actually targets the one who asks silly questions
that, as it is usual, can only produce silly answers just as shown above.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
<fucko...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>A Planet 'Rule 25[b][2]' Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote ...
>
>>>> How predicable you have become, euro.
>
>>>Not more than you, PV. One is sure, when one doesn't make friends with
>>>you on this group, by which names one will be called.
>
>> Unlike you, sport. I do not seek or beg members of the group. You will
>> find I have repeated that dozens of times.
>
>Yes, and like most of what you post, it's a downright lie. Witness your
>919-line post to Geena last November, where you begged her to be your
>friend, and help you against 'The Gang' ... ho, ho, ho ...
>
>url:http://www.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl3446790310d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=QqJz9.112594%24fa.2031830%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>
Poor Desmond... unable to even recognize that my post was not to Genna, but
to him, in response to HIS pathetic begging post to her, which he quickly
decided not to pursue further, after finding out she was 'of legal age,' and thus
someone he was no sexually attracted to, as he found her quite too old for him... See
-
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=20021110212937.12309.00001154%40mb-fo.aol.com
Have you considered therapy for this unhealthy attraction to young girls, Desmond?
How I pity you.
>{ snip remainder of 566-line post, 'repleat' (sic) with FuckWit Patented
> Gimmicks (TM), mainly FuckWit Patented Gimmick (TM) N° 166, the 'the lie
> becomes the truth gimmick url:http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/gimmicks/166.html
>}
>
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
Readers can examine Desmond asking Jigsaw to provide his 16-year-old
niece to give Desmond a 'blow job,' plus other sexual predator comments
toward young children expressed by Desmond -- See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_173.html
PV
>- --
>Desmond 'Old enough to bleed...old enough to butcher' Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:8pk3rvoc5sv16iekm...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:22:06 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>(long snipped)
>
>> >
>> >Pity should not subsitute for justice, but pity does play a role in
>justice.
>> >Or then, what do mitigating circumstances stand for?
>> >
>> Mitigating circumstances are just that... CIRCUMSTANCES
>> that tend to mitigate. Pity is that which would be expressed in
>> the ABSENCE of such circumstances.
>
>What are mitigating circumstances based on, if not on pity. How does a judge
>consider the possibility to give mitigating circumstances?
>
Mitigating circumstances are based on REALITY, not pity.
>> To call mitigating
>> circumstances -- pity, is as absurd as calling the difference between
>> the penalties for rape and murder -- pity.
>
>The latter is absurd, indeed, the former isn't. Comparing both, besides, is
>equally absurd.
>
Actually, euro... you're a bit absurd. Quite like when you claimed that 40,000
deaths are an 'irrelevant comparison.' The circumstances of rape and the
circumstances of murder are CIRCUMSTANCES. If a rapist does not
murder during his rape, he cannot be considered having met the circumstances
which meet the criteria for the crime of murder. It certainly has nothing to do
with pity. While if you mean within the same parameters as the crime in question,
again they only provide CIRCUMSTANCES which affect the degree of
punishment. They can in no way be seen as an expression of 'pity,' but
simply the identification that the crime committed contained elements which
affected the sentence. With mitigating circumstances working to make a crime
seem less serious, or partly excusing it, while aggravating circumstances
working to make a crime seem more serious, thus demanding a more severe
penalty. Pity doesn't play a role, except in your dreams of protecting
murderers, believing they should be 'pitied' for having committed murder.
>> >> Bzzzzzz... wrong answer. You are not God... deciding what does and
>> >> does
>> >> not MATTER for the victim's family. Please stop being a hypocrite and
>> >> presume you can decide all matters for everyone. Each of us have
>> >> different
>> >> emotions and different things matter more or less for each of us.
>> >
>> >Do you mean that something else can matter? What then?
>> >
>> That's what I'm trying to explain to you. I can no more say what matters,
>> than YOU can say what matters. We are not God... either of us. And
>> what matters to each of them, is not ours to judge or evaluate. We can
>> only say that 'things matter to them.' And those 'things' can be
>> ANYTHING.
>> Not simply limited to 'punishment,' as you implied, or the 'degree of the
>> punishment' as some sort of absolute. The comment went like this -- You
>> expect to decide what matter for them. I tell you that you cannot do so
>> because you cannot decide for them. You say - then you tell me what they
>> should decide matters. While I have just told you that NO ONE can decide
>> for them.
>
>I admit your argument here. But then, that being admitted, you will probably
>agree with me that justice should not necessarily bring the victims'
>families what they expect. Once again, as I often stressed, justice is not
>revenge.
>
I've never said that justice is 'bringing the victims' OR the murderers
family what they expect.' Of course that has nothing to do with justice,
IMHO. It is simply my argument that pity is not justice, as well. Justice
is simply the standard set in the law, which does not speak of 'pity' for
the offender. It DOES speak of 'punishment,' which by any definition
has an element of 'revenge' to it.
Your definition of justice is deeply flawed. Justice is the legal application
of the law. You cannot interpret it any other way, without presuming that
you are God... contending that you can define 'justice' for everyone. The
concept of justice in the law is based on crime carries consequence. And
those consequences are in the form of punishment. And revenge is clearly
defined as punishment. Why is it always necessary for me to show you,
in your seeming inability to recognize these meanings for yourself? I believe
I have already provided this... but you seem unable to understand it --
---------------------------------------------------------
re·venge
re·venge [ri vénj]
vt (past re·venged, past participle re·venged, present participle re·veng·ing, 3rd
person present singular re·veng·es)
1. secure revenge for somebody: to avenge yourself or somebody else who has been
harmed
2. punish somebody for harm done: to punish somebody in retaliation for harm or
injury done
n
1. something done in retaliation: something done to get even with somebody else who
has caused harm
2. desire for retaliation: the desire or urge to get even with somebody
3. retaliatory punishment: the punishing of somebody in retaliation for harm done
[14th century. From Old French revengier , from vengier “to avenge,” from late Latin
vindicare (see vindicate).]
-re·venge·ful, adj
-re·venge·ful·ly, adv
-re·veng·er, n
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------
To deny that there is 'revenge' in the justice system is absurd, since punishment
meets the definition. Only if there were NO PUNISHMENT, could someone
claim there was no 'revenge' in the justice system. Of course, your MESSIAH
has REJECTED the concept of punishment for murderers, so perhaps you
agree that we need not punish murderers. Oh... wait... you already DID
agree with that... arguing that John Wayne Gacy, a proven murderer should
have the same 'human right' to unlimited freedom that all nonproven criminals
have!! Immune to punishment by society for his crime, as all nonproven criminals
are also immune to punishment by society.
Your OPINION may hold that 'justice is not revenge,' but it is simply your
opinion, so please do not presume it as a fact... since the FACTS lies in the
definitions. And the FACTS disprove your opinion, in every case where
punishment forms a part of justice. As long as punishment EXISTS in the
application of the law.. revenge is a part of punishment... punishment is a
part of the application of the law... application of the law is justice. That
logical chain cannot be broken since the definitions of the words prohibit
it from being broken. Only the removal of 'punishment' from the application
of the law, can TOTALLY eliminate 'revenge' in that chain as an element
of justice.
Given that closure has no part in the justice system... why would you even
bring it up? Closure is an emotional issue, not a factual examination of the
circumstances of the murder, and the conduct of the murderer. If you argue
that a particular punishment does not provide closure more than another,
then you must realize you are also saying that the murderer's family finds no
difference in such punishments, and thus the DP is the same as any other penalty
for the murderer's family, as well as the victim's. You simply cannot set two
standards. One for the victim's family and the other for the murderer's family.
When you speak of closure it is contained in both families, so your words mean
that the DP is no different than any other penalty in respect to closure. And
I agree with that... but I am sure you do not... since you do enjoy setting
two standards.
>Contrary to what you understood, this was to make it clear that I didn't
>intend to argue closure, as it is not relevant in the debate on the penalty.
>I also wrote that "what matters is that the murderer gets a punishment" -
>i.e., not closure. My argument is clear and never changed throughout the
>thread above.
>
I have no idea why you even mentioned it, in that case. Your 'argument' (sic),
switches from one end to the other.
>> >> >Besides, seeing how many years convicted murderers spend sometimes on
>> >> >death
>> >> >row waiting for their execution, I doubt that death penalty can be
>> >> >considered as the penalty that creates the smaller deal of sorrow for
>> >> >them.
>> >> >
>> >> So you would shorten the time... and eliminate some due process... is
>> >> that
>> >> it?
>> >
>> >No. I would abolish death penalty, so that victims' families are sure,
>> >when
>> >the convict is sentenced to jail for any period, that justice has been
>> >given.
>>
>> STOP!!!! Stop deciding for the FAMILIES! You cannot do so, nor
>> does it have ANY meaning within the concept of justice. You may have
>> an opinion on abolishing the DP, but STOP bringing in arguments which
>> you offer as dogma, and those that have no meaning in respect to the
>> concept of justice. I find you claiming the families have nothing to do
>> with justice, and then you argue here that they do. If they have nothing
>> to do with justice then do not keep referring to such a connection.
>> If you think that they DO have something to do with justice, then
>> provide what you mean in specific terms rather than the specious and
>> irrelevant dogma you seem to enjoy spreading about.
>
>You're confusing everything here.
No, euro... you are the one providing confusing and conflicting opinionated
nonsense.
> I made a claim of principle, that families
>have nothing to do with justice. However, they are necessarily connected
>with the final statement given by justice. They necessarily react to this,
>don't you think so? How many testimonies from victims' families have I read,
>that said in substance that it had been difficult to wait all those years
>for the implementation of an execution?
I really don't care what your OPINION is... can this possibly get through
to you? I care when you argue as if your opinion is some sort of
factual observation, which it is NOT. Here are your words -- "No. I
would abolish death penalty, so that victims' families are sure, when
the convict is sentenced to jail for any period, that justice has been
given." You are 'stating' what abolishing the DP WILL DO in respect to
what the victim's family will NOW find. You are stating that factually
the victim's family will be "SURE... that justice has been given..." if the DP
is only abolished. And that's attempting to provide your nonsense opinion as
some sort of factual observation. This is again the heart of my disagreement
and disgust with your comments. You sneak in these sententious, contemptuous,
and pretentious pieces of nonsense, which represent your opinion, yet you
offer them as some sort of factual observation, in that arrogant, God-like
manner of your style of posting.
You CANNOT say what will be required for the victims' family to believe
that 'justice has been given.' When you do try to say that... you are presuming
yourself to be God-like in 'knowing' what it will take for the family of
the victim to find that 'justice has been given.' Read these words back
carefully, since they are the main reason that our disagreements have been
so contentious. I do not mind you having, and expressing an opinion. But
you cannot offer that opinion, as if it is the opinion of everyone on this planet,
or that it represents some factual observation, such as 2 + 2 = 4. Stick
to the facts, or make it perfectly clear you are offering an opinion. In this
particular case, your opinion is flawed logically and practically, since you
offer it as some fact... which makes it totally meaningless.
>It is impossible not to draw from those testimonies a practical argument in
>favour of abolition. That is what I did above.
>
Once again... refer to the above. If it has nothing to do with justice, then it
cannot make an argument for abolition. Only justice can argue for or against
abolition, and you just stated that "families have nothing to do with justice."
>> > Any additional jail sentence would come as a complement to the first
>> >sentence, and not as _the_ sentence that provides closure.
>>
>> As I said...and said...and said... "if you presume that closure forms
>> a part of the justice system. I don't."
>
>I believe I made my position clear to you above, on this point.
>
I don't think so.. but if you agree that closure has no meaning in respect to
justice for EITHER side, then the issue is closed. So do not speak of closure
again, since you were the FIRST to bring it into the argument, if you follow the
chain of this argument, and your comment five posts ago, above... which first
mentioned it. Once again.. you seem unable to remember which direction you
wish to go.
>> > Finally, with
>> >death penalty being abolished, victims' families would not even dream of
>> >seeing the murderer of their relative be killed and witnessing the
>> >operation - a quite macabre show in my view.
>> >
>> Why do you ALWAYS try to express what victims' families
>> would 'dream of' or not 'dream of'?
>
>Isn't it true that many victims' families "dream of" witnessing an execution
>that they keep waiting for years? Isn't it true that many actually witness
>the execution?
>
The problem is you imply that you are speaking for ALL victims' families.
There is the flip-side of this argument that justice is served, irrespective
of the 'feeling' of the respective families. Yet YOU always hope to bring
it into the argument, but ONLY as an 'expression of pity' for the family of
the murderer.... while now, you offer the most disgusting implication that the
victims' families are 'mentally sick' because they 'wish' to see the murderer
executed. Your bilious argument intends to INSULT the families of the
victim, while suggesting that 'pity' for the family of the murderer should be a
consideration in seeking justice. It represents a form of demagoguery, in
hyperbole, contending that the victim's family is 'evil,' and the murderers'
family is somehow part of 'justice.' If the families have no part of justice,
and you have agreed that they do not.. then whether the victims' family
witness the execution or not also has no part of justice. But you would
insult, savage and assail them, as if the murderer has not already done so
enough, by implying that they are EVIL, for expecting to witness the results
of JUSTICE, as they see it... which is bound within the meaning of 'the
application of the law.' They cannot affect justice, but please don't insult
them by presuming they cannot WITNESS it in action, as they see it.
To do so, is exactly what I have seen in you before... a total unconcern in
respect to the victim. He and his family are meaningless to you. Except
when insult them, and try to USE them to argue that their 'feelings' show
the DP should be abolished.
>That's not an invention from my side, but a mere remark based on what
>happens regularly in the US.
>
It's a remark, all right. A rather sickening remark which attempts to portray
the victims' family as some blood-thirsty and evil humans, whom you believe
are only at the execution to 'whoop and holler' in joy. Yet, considerable
weeping is what actually occurs. Quite possibly, the victims' family would just
as well be in greater anguish knowing the murderer was still alive, and could
possibly murder again, creating similar grief for another family. So, once again,
you cannot decide for the families of either side. The disrespect you show for
the victims' family, coupled with the great respect you show for the murderers'
family, presuming pity for them should affect the scales of justice, strikes me as
you only providing a slap in the face to the families of the victim, insulting them
in that grief. While expressing unlimited 'respect' for the murderers' family.
But I already know... it's all about the murderer to you... the victim means
nothing to you.
>> What gives you the RIGHT to speak for what they feel?
>
>I don't speak for whatever they feel. I remark the way they behave, as I
>wrote just above. That is not an opinion, just a conclusion drawn from usual
>practice.
>
You're so full of pompous hot air. You are most certainly speaking for
how they FEEL... presuming they are some sort of 'evil and irrational'
humans for trying to find some understanding of justice. You are diabolically
implying that the 'behavior' of witnessing the execution, is akin to that of
holding a block party. And if you cannot see that insults the victim, then you
are one sick puppy. You are attempting to claim that the feelings of the victims'
family DO affect justice. That it affects it in a way which holds for abolition,
which is absurd If it has nothing to do with justice, as you argue, then why
would what they DO presume to support abolishing the DP?
>> >As I wrote above, mitigating circumstances are a legal concept
>>
>> Well... I'm heartened to see you find something as a 'legal concept.'
>> Since you seemed to be denying that 'legal' was a 'legal concept,'
>> in a previous dialog regarding your absurd use of 'legal murder.'
>
>As you see, one doesn't need to have the word "legal" in an expression for
>this expression to be a legal concept. A law teacher could make this clear
>to you. There are many legal concepts that don't have the word "legal" in
>them, and besides, the expression "legal concept" is not a legal concept
>itself.
>
Of course there are many 'legal concepts' that don't have the word 'legal'
in them. You have argued in a half-ass backward meaning. The word
'legal' IS a 'legal concept.' That does not mean the word 'legal' must
be inserted in EVERY 'legal concept,' but when the word 'legal' IS
applied, it is in respect to a LEGAL CONCEPT. I simply cannot believe
you are this stupid... but rest assured I will keep reminding you that
'legal' is a LEGAL CONCEPT. But not all 'legal concepts' necessarily
contain the word 'legal.' For one example... the word 'crime' is a legal
concept, but does not contain the word 'legal.'
-------------------------------------------------
le·gal
le·gal [l?g’l]
adj
1. law-related: relating to the law or to courts of law
2. of or for lawyers: relating to lawyers or to law as a profession
3. under the law: established under the law, or by common law or legislation
the legal age of consent
4. permitted by law: allowed under the law
Parking on the grass isn’t legal.
5. established by law court: recognized or established by a court of law, rather
than a court of equity
6. old enough under law: older than a minimum age established by law for some
activities such as driving (informal)
[15th century. Via French from Latin legalis , from leg- , the stem of lex “law.”]
-le·gal·ly, adv
Word Key: Synonyms
legal, lawful, decriminalized, legalized, legitimate, licit,
CORE MEANING: used to describe something that is permitted, recognized, or required
by law
legal permitted, recognized, or required by law; lawful a less commonly used word
meaning the same as legal; decriminalized no longer categorized as a criminal
offense; legalized previously categorized as illegal and now declared legal;
legitimate legally acceptable; licit a very formal and now rarely used word meaning
the same as legal
The Latin stem leg- , from which legal is derived, is also the source of English
allegation, colleague, college, delegate, legacy, legislate, legitimate, loyal, and
privilege.
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>> > that is meant
>> >to give a place to pity in justice. There is nothing of this kind for
>> >revenge.
>> >
>> Umm... euro... aggravating circumstances, son. If you think that
>> 'mitigating circumstances' are pity (they are not), then clearly
>> 'aggravating circumstances' are the flip side... and are revenge
>> (again, they are not).
>
>I wrote that they are meant to give a place to pity in justice.
Jesus... you can't even remember what you said just above. You
said that "There is nothing of this kind for revenge." And if you
find in your totally absurd argument that 'pity' equates to 'mitigating
circumstances,' then just as clearly 'aggravating circumstances'
equate to 'revenge.'
>Once again,
>if a judge decides to give mitigating circumstances, he can base his
>judgement on feelings like pity. Else, how do you explain the possibility
>for mentally ills to have softer penalties for similar crimes?
>
Because a mitigating circumstance lessens the 'degree of criminal
culpability.' Not as an expression of pity, which would necessarily
be that expressed within the SAME degree of criminal culpability.
If such a circumstance EXISTS it is a finding of a reduced culpability,
not an expression of pity. You will not find the word 'pity' within
any criminal justice statutes that I am aware of. If you can find such,
then you might have an argument, but lacking that... the principle of
"semper praesumitur pro negante," must apply, and you are simply
stating a non-factual, unproven opinion.
>> Mitigating circumstances (and aggravating circumstances) are used to
>> evaluate the different CIRCUMSTANCES which determine the amount
>> of the penalty that should be assessed for the crime. That penalty
>> ranges between the minimum and maximum, and the circumstances
>> determine where within that range the proper penalty should
>> fall. Further you confuse pity with mercy, IMHO. You may call it
>> whatever you wish, but mitigating circumstances (and aggravating
>> circumstances) strike me as nothing more than the recognition that
>> all crimes do not exactly demand the same penalty. They are
>> events that mitigate (or aggravate) rather than an expression of
>> pity (or revenge) in general. One thing is for sure. You will not find
>> the word 'pity,' (or I am quite sure 'revenge') in ANY CRIMINAL
>> STATUTE when speaking of the penalty that is assessed for the crime.
>> Thus, it's all opinion as to what YOU THINK pity (or revenge) is.
>
>Not finding 'pity' in any criminal statute doesn't mean that 'pity' doesn't
>play a role in some statements.
>
Of course it means exactly that. Unless you can SHOW where it is stated
as 'playing a role,' then it obviously DOESN'T. Lacking that... it is only
your imagination 'playing tricks on you,' again.
>> >> > I have no difficulty with that.
>> >>
>> >> Tough... I have great difficulty with it. The word 'pity' for
>> >> murderers is repugnant to me.
>> >
>> >I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
>> >families.
>>
See those words of YOURS, euro? Read them again, and weep for
the lack of substance in your entire argument. YOU DO allude to
'pity for the murderers' families' as presuming it plays a role in justice,
yet you deny any role that the victims' family plays. And in fact,
try to make them out as 'monsters,' for viewing the execution of the
murderer of their family member. Does the phrase 'double-standard,'
ring a bell?
>> What are you talking about? Your words above "Pity can be a part of
>> justice...:" Obviously.... justice is ONLY exacted on the murderer.
>> This is the part of your arguments that so distresses me... the convoluted
>> reasoning, and often conflicting comments, even within the same post.
>
>Justice concerns also the families of victims and murderers.
Good grief! Good fucking grief!!! You say Justice doesn't...
you say it does... next post you will argue it doesn't again.
Your words above "I made a claim of principle, that families
have nothing to do with justice." Now you say it DOES!!
> The families of
>victims because they expect justice for what their relative was exposed to,
>and the family of the murderer who is often overwhelmed by what their
>relative did, and risks losing this relative - in the case of a death
>sentence -, thus creating an even bigger sorrow to them.
>
Your words above "I made a claim of principle, that families
have nothing to do with justice."
You are a hypocrite within the VERY SAME POST. I do not have
to even refer to a more distance comment in the past from you. Your
hypocrisy exists from one instant to the next.
>My argument is actually very easy, and I stressed it beforehand: the tears
>from one side (the victims' family) cannot be compensated by the tears from
>another side (the murderers' family). Thee is no contradiction, once again.
>
My God... you SWITCHED AGAIN!!! Right back to your original
comment, after saying above -- "Justice concerns also the families of
victims and murderers."
This has become LAUGHABLE. Your twisting and turning from one
comment, not even separate posts, is a demonstration of the most
convoluted, irrational, say one thing, say the opposite, switch back
to the first, arguments imaginable.
>> > After all, murder is a tragic event for them too.
>> >
>> Once again... you insert a belief in 'pity for the families' of murderers.
>> I find it ludicrous, emotional, irrelevant, and biased in favor of the
>> murderer, while giving absolutely no such emotional or biased
>> context to the feelings of the victims' family... instead, I see you
>> trying to deny those feelings have the slightest relevance to
>> justice. See above.
>
>That's just the problem. What bove shows, is that you did not understand two
>principles against the death penalty that I put forward in this thread:
>
>1/ justice should not be revenge,
Once again, that is not a 'principle' but an OPINION. And in fact, an
opinion which is refuted by all factual evidence existing in any application
of punishment for crimes committed in that justice system. See above.
> hence the feelings of the victims'
>families should not be instrumentalized to justify a harder penalty;
Nor should the murderers' family be 'instrumentalized' to justify a
less harsh penalty. But you presume that it should... in your words
above... "I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
families."
What you are saying here is 'the victims' family' MUST be ignored.
>2/ justice should, on the contrary, be compassion for the murderer's family
>who undergoes a big sorrow for the murder and should not undergo a bigger
>sorrow by the irreparable lost of a relative.
>
What you are saying here is 'the murderers' family' MUST NOT be
ignored.
Double-standard. Thus, I cannot believe the stink of hypocrisy that rises
from your words, that keep shifting back and forth. In the end, presuming
that 'pity for the murderers' family,' plays a role in justice, in your words
right here, and then arguing that 'pity' for the victims' family plays
no part in justice, and that the victims' family can only be equated with
'revenge.' Then shifting back and forth arguing that neither side plays a
role in justice, in your words -- " "I made a claim of principle, that families
have nothing to do with justice." And now arguing that compassion for
the murderer's family SHOULD be justice. Cheee...
>> PV
>>
>> >Euro
>> >
>> >(stopping here, as I usually do after finding the first distortion of
>> >facts
>> >or of quotations in PV's postings - I admit this time it has come late,
>> >though).
>>
>> And then you wonder why I insult you. Don't take it personally, euro.
>> But I insult your INTELLIGENCE, and not you. And I do so, because
>> it becomes an essential part of the dialog between us. Were I not to
>> do so, it might lead others to believe you have some. I need to clearly
>> inform them that, in general, your comments are totally devoid of any
>> intelligent information, and generally end with an insult, which admits
>> to that lack of intelligence. But thanks for proving it for me. If there
>> were the slightest hint of a distortion of facts or quotes in any of my
>> comments, it is an absolute given that you would not clip a single word,
>> but would hold it up as some sort of banner of victory. The very
>> fact that you clip and insult the comments only demonstrates vividly
>> that you could not handle the comments.
>
>I clipped the part following a paragraph in which you hinted that I argued
>for pity for the murderers ("The word 'pity' for murderers is repugnant to
>me").
Pardon me? What does my comment have to do with the murderers'
family? There is not the slightest 'hint' there of what you claim. In point
of fact it again points out the difference in our methods of argument...
Since I said what the word 'pity' for murderers means TO ME, as an
opinion. You would have formed it in the style of saying ==> pity for
the murderers' family IS justice <== Presuming that EVERYONE agrees
with you, in thinking you are providing some TRUTH... whispered in
your ear by God.
> That, of course, is wrong. I never argued anything such. It
>constitutes a big hint of distortion of quote in this allegation, and I did
>not clip it indeed. The fact I clipped the remaining only demonstrates that
>I will not keep losing my time debating with someone who does not do it in
>an honest way.
>
LOL... Back and forth...
Your words --
1) "I made a claim of principle, that families have nothing to do
with justice."
2) "Justice concerns also the families of victims and murderers."
3) "justice should, on the contrary, be compassion for the murderer's family"
4) "hence the feelings of the victims' families should not be instrumentalized to
justify a harder penalty;"
5) "the tears from one side (the victims' family) cannot be compensated
by the tears from another side (the murderers' family)."
6) "I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
families."
What an unbelievable assortment of Machiavellian, ignominious, disingenuous,
feckless, sophistic, and offensive, double-speak nonsense.
>> BTW -- What do you find is the difference between murderers and
>> innocent slaves?
>
>I believe the difference is that one is free, and the other isn't. Oops,
>that may not be the difference you thought about...
>
So you find that to be a good thing, euro? You believe that murderers
SHOULD be free, and innocent slaves should not? Your jocund manner
in addressing this quite vital identification, which certainly reflects on the
fundamental argument of the DP, is quite deplorable, and can only be
attributed to the fact you do not take incarceration of murderers or the
lack of freedom for slaves as a serious matter, and in general demonstrates
that you are a victim of arrested development.
Nor does your 'answer' actually address the fundamental question which
existed from the start regarding the DP and slavery. Since we are not talking
about 'free murderers' (although in your love for them you have argued that
they all have the 'human right' to freedom). We are speaking of murderers
on DR, awaiting execution, and the DP itself, as opposed to innocent slaves,
and slavery itself. So neither of them are 'free.' Although it is now clear to
me that you see murderers as MORE IMPORTANT than innocent slaves,
from another thread, and you would positively 'free' a murderer from the
DP, before you would 'free' an innocent slave from slavery. And then you
wonder why I find you to be a murderer lover. Wonder no more, sport.
>> This has become a 'running joke' now. Since your
>> inability to do anything but ignore the question causes laughter
>> everywhere. Even from your 'friends.'
>
>LOL!!! Maybe the laughter actually targets the one who asks silly questions
>that, as it is usual, can only produce silly answers just as shown above.
>
The very idea that you would have stated that questioning the difference
you find between murderers and innocent slaves is a silly question, is
of course, the bedrock of my stating that you are a murderer lover.
PV
>Euro
A Planet Visitor
Care to see where there is no lie? There is no lie that Donna called your
MESSIAH -- OBSCENE. And very clearly recognized the same thing
I did... that he was laughing at murder -- calling it 'population control.'
Here are Donna's words --
"The answer to your question is easy: because I don't read Desmond. I have
had more than enough of wading through reams of foul language which say
nothing. Thus, having stopped reading Desmond altogether, I did not read
his comment which I certainly agree is obscene, now that you point it out to
me." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3f475389%240%247485%2479c14f64%40nan-newsreader-02.noos.net
Unlike your MESSIAH... Donna does not hide her words from google. Now
go ahead and imitate your MESSIAH and claim that Donna was not 'smart
enough' to actually look at his post, and simply took 'my word' for it.
In light of Donna not actually 'liking me too much' I find it would be an
insult to her to claim she did not actually look at your MESSIAH'S post.
Further, you will notice that Donna no longer speaks of what she 'may
have merely,' since I am sure she is aware that I never intended to lump her
in with Earl. I have made that abundantly clear throughout my comments to
either of them. I am actually not unhappy that Donna posted as she did,
since it provided the opportunity to 'clear the air,' and make my position
more explicit. The only thing they have in common, here in AADP, is that
they are both abolitionists. Earl unable to see his own soul... Donna
apparently at a loss in respect to how to get him to see it. I treat them
separately, and have always done so. Connecting them only in the recognition
that they are married to each other. I think everyone here does, and
I remember when many became irate because Earl was posting under
Donna's name. I've implied that Donna is 'long-suffering,' but that's
simply getting some digs in, regarding how different they are. I do not believe
she is 'actually unhappy' in her marriage. it would be absurd to come to that
conclusion, not only because I do not know them personally, but that she
does not come across here at all as being that way. But it did manage to
raise her anger, which was my purpose.. sad to say... since she has
raised my anger, from time to time. Donna is NOT a murderer lover, nor
have I ever stated or implied she was. Plain...simple...fact...
PV
>Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:b9hbrv0hvk5hdf59g...@4ax.com...
You're changing topic here, PV... There is no lie that Donna wrote the
following
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3f8c48c9%240%247589%2479c14f64%40nan-ne
wsreader-03.noos.net
"Although not mentioned on Euro's list, I think I have been called a
murderer
lover. Although I may have merely been lumped with Earl."
Keep focused, PV.
Euro