Maybe the antis now have the opportunity to prove an executed inmate innocent
Hugh Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:6hb8luco7uqeo3d9f...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:07:36 GMT, pat...@hotmail.com (Vlad " I am
>> from THE NETHERLANDS you morons" Drac) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
>> >>about guilt or innocence.
>> >
>> >Of course we do. It's just that we hear so many times that innocents
>> >are executed without any proof. So let's see what you guys come up
>> >with in this particular case.
>>
>> Several dear old ladies in Salem.
>
>Huh???? The Salem 'witch hunts'??? Hugh, your brain seems to be
>parked diagonally in a parallel universe.
>
>
>PV
>
I can see how this would fail to register PV. Can you not see that a
legal system that starts out rotten is only likely to get worse over
time. Your ancestors flippantly sent innocents to their doom on
trumped up witchcraft charges. At least we in Europe had a scientific
test based on the "witches" specific gravity to ensure no innocent was
burnt at the stake.
HN
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
>news:ibo5lucg9osrmeiva...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:41:21 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies don't
>> >care if the convicted or guilty.
>>
>> Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
>> about guilt or innocence. How can rational thought enter the scene
>> when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
>> of another state murder.
>
><yawn>
>
>Actually, I would be the first to speak out if a factually innocent person
>was executed for the crime of murder in the US. However, there is no
>evidence that has happened since 1900.
>
>The fact of the matter is, most convicted murderers on death row say they
>are innocent. Gary Graham did, despite being seen and positively identified
>in a photo and standing lineup, and openly bragging to others he had killed
>before.
>
>As for DNA, who could forget Ricky McGinn, who also swore innocence, and a
>DNA test would clear him. Guess what? It didn't. (And yet, that did not stop
>the anti-DP crowd from proclaiming the State of Texas had executed an
>innocent man.)
>
>Kutzner was executed because he, without remorse, murdered two innocent
>women. Case closed.
It's a load of cobblers to suggest that the system you follow is that
perfect. Anyway guilty or innocent he is dead now, so there is little
that could be done to rectify any error. I am not arguing about
Kutzners guilt or innocence.
I find this enthusiasm for executing people that are no threat
sick to say the least. Revenge isn't exactly the most noble of human
attributes.
HN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hugh Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:ibo5lucg9osrmeiva...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:41:21 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies don't
>> >care if the convicted or guilty.
>>
>> Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
>> about guilt or innocence. How can rational thought enter the scene
>> when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
>> of another state murder.
>>
>At first I was shocked by the term 'state murder.' And then
>I realized it was only ol' 'spittle on the screen' bigot Hugh...
>whose methods represent about as much 'moral sense' as
>teaching a cannibal how to use a knife and fork.
>
I see the "cut & paste" is working again PV. I had a few brief hopes!!
>When someone has suggested that all Jews should be pushed
>into the Red Sea, we can hardly expect a rational remark about
>anything from them.
Is this crud directed at me? If so please be good enough to
state the source of your drivel.
PV, I am forced to the conclusion that you are a nasty
obnoxious stranger to the truth.
HN
>
>PV
>
>> HN
>>
GeneralZod
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnal9f0b.973.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Fri, 09 Aug 2002 23:05:05 GMT, GeneralZod <z...@pokolistan.com> a écrit
:
>
> >> >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies
don't
> >> >care if the convicted or guilty.
>
> >> Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
> >> about guilt or innocence. How can rational thought enter the scene
> >> when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
> >> of another state murder.
>
person
> > was executed for the crime of murder in the US. However, there is no
> > evidence that has happened since 1900.
>
I have yet to see you prove otherwise. You can search the archives as
far back as possible, in fact, and you have failed to name even ONE.
This is nothing more than an example of your intellectual dishonesty
when it comes to the death penalty. This is why the only real laughter comes
from others, when you try to portray yourself as credible.
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
From: Hugh Neary spamstopper@net
Date: 8/10/2002 6:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <41s9luc999rubaarl...@4ax.com>
HN
===============================
Uh......... Hugh, I hate to break this to you old buddy, but during the time of
the Salem Witch trials, American had not yet been founded. We were a british
"colony" governed by British law. That means that all legal actions was done
under His Majesty's rule. Which not only included the lack of certain rights
for the colonialst. but witch burning and eraticating unfreiendly indians
includine those indians who supported the French.
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
From: Hugh Neary spamstopper@net
Message-id: <9fs9luc6fstdiqs6t...@4ax.com>
HN
===============================
Yea...I agree....All wannabe killers should be forced to take a pre-murder
course where they are taught that Payback is
(and will be ) hell.
JIGSAW1695
>inmate innocent
>From: Hugh Neary spamstopper@net
>Message-id: <26t9lucojuuh24muh...@4ax.com>
Gotta disagree with on this one Hugh. PV has never been caught in a verififed
lie. He does tend to exagerate; he often takes Dirtdogs bait (regardless of the
name he is using) too easily, and to be honest, he is not the most diplomatic*
of contributers to this NG. But intentionally dishonest??? Nope, I dont think
so.
Jigsaw
*The most diplomatic contributer to this NG is..........uh.......it
is......gimme a minute here........wait a sec....maybe a female....no she
showed her true colors when confronted with the long-term pro's on this board.
Come to think of it there is no one who is truely diplomate. Though I gotta
admit that the closest one who reaches that status would be RushWicks.
Hugh Neary
Yes, but they're YOUR ancestors.
I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's
undesirables. Pity the Indians had to suffer, but at least it means
Europe is nice, civilised and doesn't have the DP.
HN
Hugh Neary
Excuse Ones inability to follow your logic Jigsaw, but are you saying
that the prime reason for the DP is deterrence?
I have a feeling that your "wannabe killers" would be more
than a little "miffed" by the possibility of a lifetime behind bars.
As a matter of interest Jigsaw, how many law enforcement
officers are murdered in the US? One of the many reasons put forward
against the DP in England was occurrences sutch as the siege of Sydney
Street. I believe the gang had murdered one person and then had
nothing to lose....
I know you are a mine of statistics Jigsaw, so is there any
statistical difference between the DP and none DP states/ countries
murdered law enforcers [Palestine excluded of course].
HN
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:50:41 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> >news:ibo5lucg9osrmeiva...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:41:21 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies
don't
> >> >care if the convicted or guilty.
> >>
> >> Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
> >> about guilt or innocence.
> >
>
> It's hard to see how you can support the DP then.
because we give a damn
> >
> >>How can rational thought enter the scene
> >> when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
> >> of another state murder.
> >
> >Not very objective are you? Very few deathies drool over the thought of a
> >state execution. Guilt is an issue. To me executing an innocent person is
a
> >traversty.
>
> Well let's see, there would have been quite a few travesties for you
> to concern yourself with in the UK wouldn't there.
oh yes. I am not denying that
>Do you think that
> any country with the DP has a better legal system than ours?
I cannot answer that as i don't know the legal system of all countries with
the death penalty
>
> The death penalty is either pure revenge or fear of a
> defective legal system letting a supposed guilty murderer loose.
or the distribution of extreme justice
>
> >I support the death penalty but i would not relish watching an execution
.
>
> Why not! Theres probably a good chance that the prisoner may
> be guilty.
I would hope so but i couldn't watch it even if he was
>
>
>
> HN
> >
>
>
>
> >>
> >> In fact look at the supposed Lockerbie bomber, even without
> >> the DP the FBI was still prepared to pay the Libian witness off so
> >> that the US public has a focus for their wrath.
> >>
> >> HN
> >
>
John Rennie
"GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com> wrote in message
news:BUX49.2083$JM6.43...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> news:ibo5lucg9osrmeiva...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:41:21 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies
don't
> > >care if the convicted or guilty.
> >
> > Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
> > when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
> > of another state murder.
>
>
> Actually, I would be the first to speak out if a factually innocent person
> was executed for the crime of murder in the US. However, there is no
> evidence that has happened since 1900.
Do you consider that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty?
GeneralZod
> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:35:21 GMT, GeneralZod <z...@pokolistan.com> a écrit
:
>
> { snip }
>
> >> ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!
>
> > I have yet to see you prove otherwise. You can search the archives
as
> > far back as possible, in fact, and you have failed to name even ONE.
>
> mention 'evidence', now you're talking about 'prov[ing]'.
What I said is: There is no evidence a factually innocent person has
been executed for the crime of murder in the United States since 1900. The
reason for this is because such people do not exist.
>
> The fact is, shit-for-brains, that there is a veritable _mountain_ of
> evidence, pointing to the innocence (or legal 'non-guilt', if you prefer)
> of executed criminals. That there is no 'proof', simply means that the
> criminal justice system in your country, does not have any procedure
> in place, to take this evidence into consideration, and 'prove'
> posthumous 'non-guilt'.
Then why can't you name a single person, cite a single instance,
that backs up your allegations? Once again, your intellectual dishonesty
does nothing for you.
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:26t9lucojuuh24muh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 01:04:16 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:ibo5lucg9osrmeiva...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:41:21 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies don't
> >> >care if the convicted or guilty.
> >>
> >> Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
> >> about guilt or innocence. How can rational thought enter the scene
> >> when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
> >> of another state murder.
> >>
> >At first I was shocked by the term 'state murder.' And then
> >I realized it was only ol' 'spittle on the screen' bigot Hugh...
> >whose methods represent about as much 'moral sense' as
> >teaching a cannibal how to use a knife and fork.
> >
> I see the "cut & paste" is working again PV. I had a few brief hopes!!
>
> >When someone has suggested that all Jews should be pushed
> >into the Red Sea, we can hardly expect a rational remark about
> >anything from them.
>
> Is this crud directed at me? If so please be good enough to
> state the source of your drivel.
>
Perhaps a guilty conscience, Hugh??? By calling my
statement 'crud,' you presumably disagree with my conclusion
that we should expect no rationality to be found in someone
who has 'suggested that all Jews should be pushed into the
Red Sea.'
> PV, I am forced to the conclusion that you are a nasty
> obnoxious stranger to the truth.
>
ROTFLMAO... umm.. pot...kettle..black. It is obvious
that YOU are the 'nasty obnoxious stranger to the truth.'
There is NO 'truth' to any statement that the DP is 'state
murder.' It is just hysterical raving, which defies any
logical analysis of holding 'truth.' The terms are
mutually exclusive under any examination of 'truth.'
Everyone KNOWS there is no 'truth' to what cannot
logically be. You might as well have said 2 +2 = 5,
and expect everyone to believe you have 'spoken the
truth.'
PV
>
> HN
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:41s9luc999rubaarl...@4ax.com...
You moron... Your 'scientific test,' included looking at the
'ethnic' background of a certain segment of our species,
and condemning them ALL. Very scientific!! And very
methodical as well. Zyklon-B was much more 'efficient,'
and 'scientifically' based.
The 'Salem Witch Hunts' have LESS to do with the
present-day U.S. DP, then those events in the 1930s
and 40s, have to do with present day events in Europe.
Much LESS. Those events in Europe propelled Europe
into a frenzy of illogical 'respect for human life' FOR the
same type individuals who perpetrated those acts in
the 40s and 50s. The 'Salem Witch Hunts' have
NOTHING to do with the present-day U.S. DP.
BTW -- You've simply proven you are an anti-Semite,
once again.
PV
> HN
>
>
>
JIGSAW1695
>inmate innocent
>From: Hugh Neary spamstopper@net
>Message-id: <v6galugnmfs4s4tkr...@4ax.com>
Im sure all those who died during WWI will agree with you as will al those who
died in WWII concentration camps. Lets see.....
some 6 million in Germany. 10 million in Russia not to mention its sattelite
states. Oh yea, dont forget the Americans and Canadians as well as other men
from France and British colonies.
Yup, you guys are real civilized.
Jigsaw
PS: My ethnic heratige does not include Britian. They were not my ancestors.
Mine didnt start arriving in this country untill the early nineteen hundreds.
GeneralZod
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> It's a load of cobblers to suggest that the system you follow is that
> perfect.
Then I am sure you can cite a single instance where a factually
innocent person was executed for the crime of murder in the United States
since 1900.
> I find this enthusiasm for executing people that are no threat
> sick to say the least.
Now, I guess it is my turn to say ROTFLMAO, because it is obvious
here you have no idea what you are talking about.
Kenneth Allen McDuff had served 20 years in prison for a 1966
triple murder before he was paroled. He soon violated it by attacking a man.
When he was paroled a second time, he went on a killing spree, which
included Melissa Northrup, for which he was convicted, sentenced to death,
and executed.
Gary Graham had committed a variety of violent offenses both before
and after the murder for which he was executed.
Two months after his parole from prison, for which he was serving
time for rape, Johnny Penry forced his way into the home of Pamela
Carpenter, at which point he beat, raped, and fatally stabbed her with a
pair of scissors.
Weeks after being paroled after 15 months of a 15 year sentence
for the sexual assault of a child, Carl Wayne Buntion shot and killed
Officer Jim Irby during a rotine traffic stop.
George Rivas was serving a 99 year sentence for aggravated
kidnapping and burglary when he and six other escaped from prison in late
December of 2000. During that time, Officer Aubrey Hawkins was shot to death
in the parking lot of a sporting goods store, which the seven had just
robbed.
And these are just in Texas.
Now, you wanna try that again??
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
From: Hugh Neary spamstopper@net
Message-id: <0lgalu0tt532vksou...@4ax.com>
Answer: I never have and never will claim thatthe DP is a deterent to crime .
It serves one purpose and that is of punishment.
===============
I have a feeling that your "wannabe killers" would be more
than a little "miffed" by the possibility of a lifetime behind bars.
Answer: yup they sure would be just a "little miffed" at the thought of a
lifetime behind bars. And they would really be pissed off if they were executed
for their crime.
As a matter of interest Jigsaw, how many law enforcement
officers are murdered in the US? One of the many reasons put forward
against the DP in England was occurrences sutch as the siege of Sydney
Street. I believe the gang had murdered one person and then had
nothing to lose..
==============================
I know you are a mine of statistics Jigsaw, so is there any
statistical difference between the DP and none DP states/ countries
murdered law enforcers [Palestine excluded of course].
===============================
Sorry kid, statistivs is not my strong point. Never has...never will be.
All I know is that of my brothers that I was close to were killed. One at a
traffic stop, one whene he walked in on an armed robbery (Lesson from the
police academy..... never try to outdraw anyone with a gun from a shoulder
holster...especially when you are already covered with a sawed off shotgun. And
the last was killed while trying to make an arrest.
As for the rest of the question, how many were killed......damned if I know
except the rate has gone down with the innovation of full Kelvar body armour.
Jigsaw
incubus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:dUZ49.136373$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> > On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:07:36 GMT, pat...@hotmail.com (Vlad " I am
> > from THE NETHERLANDS you morons" Drac) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>about guilt or innocence.
> > >
> > >are executed without any proof. So let's see what you guys come up
> > >with in this particular case.
> >
> > Several dear old ladies in Salem.
>
> Huh???? The Salem 'witch hunts'??? Hugh, your brain seems to be
> parked diagonally in a parallel universe.
The Salem witch hunts like all witch hunts were based on hearsay. What they
perceived as evident proved nothing other than the witch smelller's
stupidity. The fact that they threw hundreds of midwives, nannies and other
women who had a slight opinion into a lake, burned thier hands or ducked
them into a lake only to find that not once did these tests find the accused
guilty makes me wonder why this lack of results didn't deter them in the
slightest. Yet they burned the accused anyway. I mean what is wrong with
these people? are they as stupid as the fictional louise lane who despite
clark kent's feeble attempt to disguise himself by donning a pair of
spectacles, failed to recognise that clark kent and superman are the same
person. I know the above is fictional which is the very reason why that
level of stupidity can never really happen... erm eh <edges out of room>
>
>
> PV
>
> >
> > HN
> >
>
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
Date: 8/10/2002 2:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <5Qc59.2730$id3.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
I would hope so but i couldn't watch it even if he was.
==============================
OK< you are not invited to attend.
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
Date: 8/10/2002 2:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <H8d59.2619$wp2.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
===============================
Yup.
incubus
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020810173242...@mb-ms.aol.com...
What guys? Who are you stabbing here?
>
> Jigsaw
>
> PS: My ethnic heratige does not include Britian. They were not my
ancestors.
> Mine didnt start arriving in this country untill the early nineteen
hundreds.
so why are you so sensitive about it my friend?
incubus
thank you for sparing me the gore. Now where's that copy of alien vs.
predator 2 ;-)
incubus
how would you find them? there are no precogs here I'm afraid
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> On 10 Aug 2002 16:16:10 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
<snip>
> Excuse Ones inability to follow your logic Jigsaw, but are you saying
> that the prime reason for the DP is deterrence?
There are only two reasons i can see. One is justice, the other is
deterrence, though the latter is in question by the fact that some prisoners
preferred to face the gourney than a life in prison. So justice it is
>
> I have a feeling that your "wannabe killers" would be more
> than a little "miffed" by the possibility of a lifetime behind bars.
>
> As a matter of interest Jigsaw, how many law enforcement
> officers are murdered in the US? One of the many reasons put forward
> against the DP in England was occurrences sutch as the siege of Sydney
> Street. I believe the gang had murdered one person and then had
> nothing to lose....
yes they had, their lives
GeneralZod
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:H8d59.2619$wp2.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Yep. They were executed because they did it. Why do you ask?
John Rennie
>
>
snip
> > Do you consider that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty?
>
> Yep. They were executed because they did it. Why do you ask?
Just to finally confirm that you are an idiot and that your views aren't
worth the viewing.
A Planet Visitor
> Le 10 Aug 2002 21:32:42 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > PS: My ethnic heratige does not include Britian. They were not my ancestors.
> > Mine didnt start arriving in this country untill the early nineteen hundreds.
>
>
I believe you will find that Jigsaw has an Italian background, of
early 20th Century vintage. In fact, I believe he speaks a bit of
Italian from what I've seen of a few of his posts.
Care to confirm or deny, Jigsaw?
PV
> --
> Des On The Road |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:56:27 +0100, Hugh Neary <spamstopper@net> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >>Yea...I agree....All wannabe killers should be forced to take a pre-murder
> >>course where they are taught that Payback is
> >>(and will be ) hell.
>
> > Excuse Ones inability to follow your logic Jigsaw, but are you saying
> > that the prime reason for the DP is deterrence?
> >
> > I have a feeling that your "wannabe killers" would be more
> > than a little "miffed" by the possibility of a lifetime behind bars.
> >
> > As a matter of interest Jigsaw, how many law enforcement
> > officers are murdered in the US? One of the many reasons put forward
> > against the DP in England was occurrences sutch as the siege of Sydney
> > Street. I believe the gang had murdered one person and then had
> > nothing to lose....
> >
> > I know you are a mine of statistics Jigsaw, so is there any
> > statistical difference between the DP and none DP states/ countries
> > murdered law enforcers [Palestine excluded of course].
>
> murders committed in the United States, occur in capital jurisdictions.
>
> I posted on this a while back, but can't remember when (and can't be
> arsed checking my archives). Run a search on google, for 'Planet
> Visitor', and 'in-gaol' or whatever, as if I recall correctly, LDB
> posted one of his obsessive, slavish follow-ups, and then claimed
> victory.
>
TRANSLATION -- "PV kicked my ass sometime back, but I'd
rather put it out of my mind, and tell you to check using the
word 'gaol,' which PV has used maybe once or twice in his
whole posting history."
<belly laugh on>
That should keep Hugh busy, while making it look like you
REALLY said anything. Why don't YOU archive your posts,
and then YOU could find it yourself, FDP? I remember the post,
and it showed that no significant information could be found
one way or the other with the number of murders in prison.
But once again, you are logically challenged, since YOU
are the proponder of this conclusion, YOU must prove it,
I do not have to DISPROVE it. There is a little thing called
semper praesumitur pro negante - the presumption is
ALWAYS in the negative.
But you're always looking for someone to do your work for
you, FDP.
<belly laugh off>
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:v6galugnmfs4s4tkr...@4ax.com...
Hugh's conclusion that Europe was 'cleansed of it's undesirables'????
PV
>
> HN
>
>
>
>
>
GeneralZod
> Le Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:04:16 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> >> > Do you consider that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty?
>
> >> Yep. They were executed because they did it. Why do you ask?
>
> > Just to finally confirm that you are an idiot and that your views aren't
> > worth the viewing.
I am still waiting for you to respond to my query, Desi.
I am laughing at the superior intellect.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:f5k59.238604$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Don't really know what he is on about but then I rarely
understand Hugh's peregrinations. Perhaps he is referring to
Home Sapiens supplanting Neanderthals?
Hugh Neary
Even the best of families have the occasional tiff Jigsaw.
>
>Jigsaw
>
>PS: My ethnic heratige does not include Britian. They were not my ancestors.
>Mine didnt start arriving in this country untill the early nineteen hundreds.
No excuse. your environment rather than your genes would have the
maximum effect on your disposition. The witch & indian killers will
have multiplied and spread their evil throughout the US. As can be
readily seen by the support for the DP, bombing innocents and
religious weirdos that want to ban the Teletubbies.
HN
Hugh Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
What are you on PV, is it nice? Methinks it may be detrimental to the
grey matter though.
>
>The 'Salem Witch Hunts' have LESS to do with the
>present-day U.S. DP, then those events in the 1930s
>and 40s, have to do with present day events in Europe.
>Much LESS. Those events in Europe propelled Europe
>into a frenzy of illogical 'respect for human life' FOR the
>same type individuals who perpetrated those acts in
>the 40s and 50s. The 'Salem Witch Hunts' have
>NOTHING to do with the present-day U.S. DP.
>
It IS detrimental to the grey matter!
>BTW -- You've simply proven you are an anti-Semite,
>once again.
You missed "bigot" out. That's very unlike you PV. Calm down, ease off
on whatever substance you are high on and I'm sure you will be able to
cut & paste your crud once more.
HTH
HN
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
>news:0lgalu0tt532vksou...@4ax.com...
>> On 10 Aug 2002 16:16:10 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Excuse Ones inability to follow your logic Jigsaw, but are you saying
>> that the prime reason for the DP is deterrence?
>
>There are only two reasons i can see. One is justice, the other is
>deterrence, though the latter is in question by the fact that some prisoners
>preferred to face the gourney than a life in prison. So justice it is
I'm intrigued. Explain what you mean by justice then. If the
punishment must fit the crime I can see a few obvious problems.
>>
>> I have a feeling that your "wannabe killers" would be more
>> than a little "miffed" by the possibility of a lifetime behind bars.
>>
>> As a matter of interest Jigsaw, how many law enforcement
>> officers are murdered in the US? One of the many reasons put forward
>> against the DP in England was occurrences sutch as the siege of Sydney
>> Street. I believe the gang had murdered one person and then had
>> nothing to lose....
>
>yes they had, their lives
Er not quite Incubus. If they were caught they had lost them anyway.
HN
Hugh Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:26t9lucojuuh24muh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 01:04:16 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:ibo5lucg9osrmeiva...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:41:21 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies don't
>> >> >care if the convicted or guilty.
>> >>
>> >> Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
>> >> about guilt or innocence. How can rational thought enter the scene
>> >> when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
>> >> of another state murder.
>> >>
>> >At first I was shocked by the term 'state murder.' And then
>> >I realized it was only ol' 'spittle on the screen' bigot Hugh...
>> >whose methods represent about as much 'moral sense' as
>> >teaching a cannibal how to use a knife and fork.
>> >
>> I see the "cut & paste" is working again PV. I had a few brief hopes!!
>>
>You're hardly 'worth' more effort, Hugh. Do not presume you are.
Shucks what a blow to Ones ego!
>
>> >When someone has suggested that all Jews should be pushed
>> >into the Red Sea, we can hardly expect a rational remark about
>> >anything from them.
>>
>> Is this crud directed at me? If so please be good enough to
>> state the source of your drivel.
>>
>Perhaps a guilty conscience, Hugh??? By calling my
>statement 'crud,' you presumably disagree with my conclusion
>that we should expect no rationality to be found in someone
>who has 'suggested that all Jews should be pushed into the
>Red Sea.
Be a good egg, state the source or apologise for that attribution of
yours.
>
>> PV, I am forced to the conclusion that you are a nasty
>> obnoxious stranger to the truth.
>>
>ROTFLMAO... umm.. pot...kettle..black. It is obvious
>that YOU are the 'nasty obnoxious stranger to the truth.'
>There is NO 'truth' to any statement that the DP is 'state
>murder.' It is just hysterical raving, which defies any
>logical analysis of holding 'truth.' The terms are
>mutually exclusive under any examination of 'truth.'
>Everyone KNOWS there is no 'truth' to what cannot
>logically be. You might as well have said 2 +2 = 5,
>and expect everyone to believe you have 'spoken the
>truth.'
>
I have already provided you with the meaning of the word murder. I
will not do it again.
HN
>PV
>>
>> HN
>
Hugh Neary
wrote:
If people are in custody, they are no threat. If killers are released
to murder again, your penal system is duff. If you have a defective
system, then granted you cannot rely on it to keep prisoners secure.
If the system that is so full of shortcomings is party to trying &
convicting people, I think it's safe to assume that a good few
innocents have gone to their deaths.
Once convicted what chance is there of proving innocence.
Anyone with a family having the cash for research would have spent it
on defence lawyers anyway. I think OJ Simpson proved reasonably
clearly that anyone with cash is innocent anyway.
HN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hugh Neary
>>Subject: Re: Maybe the antis now have the opportunity to prove an executed
>>inmate innocent
>>From: Hugh Neary spamstopper@net
>>Date: 8/10/2002 7:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <26t9lucojuuh24muh...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 01:04:16 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
>>news:ibo5lucg9osrmeiva...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:41:21 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >from your subject header, you give the impression that us deathies don't
>>>> >care if the convicted or guilty.
>>>>
>>>> Incubus, you have a lot to learn. Of course they don't give a damn
>>>> about guilt or innocence. How can rational thought enter the scene
>>>> when the DP merchants are tranfixed & drooling saliva at the thought
>>>> of another state murder.
>>>>
>>>At first I was shocked by the term 'state murder.' And then
>>>I realized it was only ol' 'spittle on the screen' bigot Hugh...
>>>whose methods represent about as much 'moral sense' as
>>>teaching a cannibal how to use a knife and fork.
>>>
>>I see the "cut & paste" is working again PV. I had a few brief hopes!!
>>
>>>When someone has suggested that all Jews should be pushed
>>>into the Red Sea, we can hardly expect a rational remark about
>>>anything from them.
>>
>> Is this crud directed at me? If so please be good enough to
>>state the source of your drivel.
>>
>> PV, I am forced to the conclusion that you are a nasty
>>obnoxious stranger to the truth.
>>
>>
>>HN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>PV
>>>
>>>> HN
>===============================
>
>Gotta disagree with on this one Hugh. PV has never been caught in a verififed
>lie. He does tend to exagerate; he often takes Dirtdogs bait (regardless of the
>name he is using) too easily, and to be honest, he is not the most diplomatic*
>of contributers to this NG. But intentionally dishonest??? Nope, I dont think
>so.
>
I admire your good intentions, sticking up for the underdog in spite
of all his shortcomings.
Alas Unless I have written, signed proof by a responsible
adult that PV has undergone a polygraph test or been administered with
pentathol prior to generating his drivel, I shall continue to take his
ramblings with the proverbial sack of salt.
HN
>Jigsaw
>
>*The most diplomatic contributer to this NG is..........uh.......it
>is......gimme a minute here........wait a sec....maybe a female....no she
>showed her true colors when confronted with the long-term pro's on this board.
>
>Come to think of it there is no one who is truely diplomate. Though I gotta
>admit that the closest one who reaches that status would be RushWicks.
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
Date: 8/10/2002 5:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <slrnalb27p.ca5.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 10 Aug 2002 21:32:42 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
> PS: My ethnic heratige does not include Britian. They were not my ancestors.
> Mine didnt start arriving in this country untill the early nineteen hundreds.
Interesting, Jigsaw ... care to elaborate ?
--
Des On The Road
===============================
Not particularly.
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
Date: 8/10/2002 10:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <79k59.238648$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnalb27p.ca5.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le 10 Aug 2002 21:32:42 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > PS: My ethnic heratige does not include Britian. They were not my
ancestors.
> > Mine didnt start arriving in this country untill the early nineteen
hundreds.
>
> Interesting, Jigsaw ... care to elaborate ?
>
I believe you will find that Jigsaw has an Italian background, of
early 20th Century vintage. In fact, I believe he speaks a bit of
Italian from what I've seen of a few of his posts.
Care to confirm or deny, Jigsaw?
PV
===============================
On advice of my attorney, the esteemed Louise Woodword (or whatever) I Admit
nothing and deny everything.
JIGSAW1695
inmate innocent
Date: 8/10/2002 5:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <lYf59.1039$3j4.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
==============================
Im not that sensitive about it. What makes you think I should be.
Jigsaw
incubus
the fact that you jumped in, accused "somebody undetermined" of being
uncivilised and got immediately defensive about your origins even though
they were never brought into question.
Personally i answer only to my own crimes and not those of my ancestors as
should be the same with everyone else
>
> Jigsaw
Hugh Neary
wrote:
You mean you are "right chuffed" with Englands performance so far. You
do not feel it is any of your responsibility attempting to sort out
the "British Problem" in Ireland?
HN
>
>
>>
>> Jigsaw
>
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:10:32 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> >news:0lgalu0tt532vksou...@4ax.com...
> >> On 10 Aug 2002 16:16:10 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Excuse Ones inability to follow your logic Jigsaw, but are you saying
> >> that the prime reason for the DP is deterrence?
> >
> >There are only two reasons i can see. One is justice, the other is
> >deterrence, though the latter is in question by the fact that some
prisoners
> >preferred to face the gourney than a life in prison. So justice it is
>
> I'm intrigued. Explain what you mean by justice then. If the
> punishment must fit the crime I can see a few obvious problems.
Justice to me means a fitting punishment for a crime though it is clear a
more accurate interpretation of justice is, "how good your solicitor is"
> >>
> >> I have a feeling that your "wannabe killers" would be more
> >> than a little "miffed" by the possibility of a lifetime behind bars.
> >>
> >> As a matter of interest Jigsaw, how many law enforcement
> >> officers are murdered in the US? One of the many reasons put forward
> >> against the DP in England was occurrences sutch as the siege of Sydney
> >> Street. I believe the gang had murdered one person and then had
> >> nothing to lose....
> >
> >yes they had, their lives
>
> Er not quite Incubus. If they were caught they had lost them anyway.
you are forgetting the "fair trial" and the "quality of defense"
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
no.
The guilty are guilty. The innocent are not
>
> HN
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Jigsaw
> >
>
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:10:32 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> >news:0lgalu0tt532vksou...@4ax.com...
> >> On 10 Aug 2002 16:16:10 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Excuse Ones inability to follow your logic Jigsaw, but are you saying
> >> that the prime reason for the DP is deterrence?
> >
> >There are only two reasons i can see. One is justice, the other is
> >deterrence, though the latter is in question by the fact that some
prisoners
> >preferred to face the gourney than a life in prison. So justice it is
>
> I'm intrigued. Explain what you mean by justice then. If the
> punishment must fit the crime I can see a few obvious problems.
Justice to me means a fitting punishment for a crime though it is clear a
more accurate interpretation of justice is, "how good your solicitor is"
> >>
> >> I have a feeling that your "wannabe killers" would be more
> >> than a little "miffed" by the possibility of a lifetime behind bars.
> >>
> >> As a matter of interest Jigsaw, how many law enforcement
> >> officers are murdered in the US? One of the many reasons put forward
> >> against the DP in England was occurrences sutch as the siege of Sydney
> >> Street. I believe the gang had murdered one person and then had
> >> nothing to lose....
> >
> >yes they had, their lives
>
> Er not quite Incubus. If they were caught they had lost them anyway.
you are forgetting the "fair trial" and the "quality of defense"
>
GeneralZod
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> If people are in custody, they are no threat.
But, of course. Everyone knows inmates do not commit additional crimes
while in prison (like escaping from it, for example).
And if you actually believe this, I can get you a real good deal on a
bridge in Brooklyn.
If killers are released
> to murder again, your penal system is duff. If you have a defective
> system, then granted you cannot rely on it to keep prisoners secure.
> If the system that is so full of shortcomings is party to trying &
> convicting people, I think it's safe to assume that a good few
> innocents have gone to their deaths.
Assuming is one thing. Proving is another. Nobody has been able to do
that. In fact, I have asked Desi twice to do so in this very thread, and he
has taken to it like a vampire to garlic.
> Once convicted what chance is there of proving innocence.
There is plenty, which you would already know if you lived in the US.
Convicted murderers sentenced to death automatically go into the appeals
process, where such grounds as innocence or mental retardation or the
convict was not mirandized in Czech go on an individual basis through
various state and federal courts, ultimately ending up at the US Supreme
Court, taking an average of ten years between sentencing and execution.
Hugh Neary
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:56:01 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> do not feel it is any of your responsibility attempting to sort out
>>> the "British Problem" in Ireland?
>
>> no.
>> The guilty are guilty. The innocent are not
>
>And they say that deathies aren't intelligent ...
Perhaps the statement is just too deep?
maybe not!
HN
Hugh Neary
wrote:
I'm sorry Incubus, I think you have lost the plot somewhere.
If a murder was carried out by a gang, then the gang would hang. Hence
the enthusiasm for fights to the death.
In the UK at that time a fair trial for the working class was
terminated by a hanging.
[Similar to the US now I suppose]
HN
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
>news:maaclu8gesvqgaco6...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:35:58 GMT, "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> If people are in custody, they are no threat.
>
> But, of course. Everyone knows inmates do not commit additional crimes
>while in prison (like escaping from it, for example).
Well with a duff penal system, you are not going to have anyone with
the brains to order cells complete with doors I suppose.
>
> And if you actually believe this, I can get you a real good deal on a
>bridge in Brooklyn.
>
>
>
> If killers are released
>> to murder again, your penal system is duff. If you have a defective
>> system, then granted you cannot rely on it to keep prisoners secure.
>> If the system that is so full of shortcomings is party to trying &
>> convicting people, I think it's safe to assume that a good few
>> innocents have gone to their deaths.
>
> Assuming is one thing. Proving is another. Nobody has been able to do
>that. In fact, I have asked Desi twice to do so in this very thread, and he
>has taken to it like a vampire to garlic.
>
I cannot prove it. I wouldn't stake too much cash on your statement
though.
>
>> Once convicted what chance is there of proving innocence.
>
> There is plenty, which you would already know if you lived in the US.
>Convicted murderers sentenced to death automatically go into the appeals
>process, where such grounds as innocence or mental retardation or the
>convict was not mirandized in Czech go on an individual basis through
>various state and federal courts, ultimately ending up at the US Supreme
>Court, taking an average of ten years between sentencing and execution.
A duff penal system would be expected to put safeguards in to cover
it's many errors. Sadly as it runs those safeguards too........
>
>
>
>
HN
John Rennie
> Subject: Re: Maybe the antis now have the opportunity to prove an executed
>
> >
> > PS: My ethnic heratige does not include Britian. They were not my
> ancestors.
> > Mine didnt start arriving in this country untill the early nineteen
> hundreds.
>
> so why are you so sensitive about it my friend?
> ==============================
>
> Im not that sensitive about it. What makes you think I should be.
>
> Jigsaw
Sensitivity and Jiggy have been bed fellows (if one is allowed to
use that phrase these days.)
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
Nonsense.
>
> If a murder was carried out by a gang, then the gang would hang. Hence
> the enthusiasm for fights to the death.
no they would get a fair trial first and if found guilty they more often
than not be repreived aftewards and not hang
>
> In the UK at that time a fair trial for the working class was
> terminated by a hanging.
Rubbish. The uk system was based on the scenario of sentencing the killers
to death then commuting it. Very few that deserved to die actually did. they
seemed to spenf more time hanging the innocent. The right to live dependent
on money seems to be a bugbear which afflicts the US dudes where they are
guilty until proven innocent
John Rennie
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zeA59.3086$mn5.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
I think an amendment is due. 'Sensitivity and Jiggy have NOT been bed
fellows'.
GeneralZod
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:37:35 GMT, "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> >news:maaclu8gesvqgaco6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:35:58 GMT, "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> If people are in custody, they are no threat.
> >
> > But, of course. Everyone knows inmates do not commit additional
crimes
> >while in prison (like escaping from it, for example).
>
> Well with a duff penal system, you are not going to have anyone with
> the brains to order cells complete with doors I suppose.
And what, pray tell, system are you talking about, specifically?
Or how about just coming out and saying what you mean to infer with this
tone?
> >
> > And if you actually believe this, I can get you a real good deal
on a
> >bridge in Brooklyn.
> >
> >
> >
> > If killers are released
> >> to murder again, your penal system is duff. If you have a defective
> >> system, then granted you cannot rely on it to keep prisoners secure.
> >> If the system that is so full of shortcomings is party to trying &
> >> convicting people, I think it's safe to assume that a good few
> >> innocents have gone to their deaths.
> >
> > Assuming is one thing. Proving is another. Nobody has been able to
do
> >that. In fact, I have asked Desi twice to do so in this very thread, and
he
> >has taken to it like a vampire to garlic.
> >
>
> I cannot prove it. I wouldn't stake too much cash on your statement
> though.
Then perhaps you would rather put cash on Desi's vacuous rhetoric,
when he asserts, "Just because there is no proof does not mean it never
happened."
> >
> >> Once convicted what chance is there of proving innocence.
> >
> > There is plenty, which you would already know if you lived in the
US.
> >Convicted murderers sentenced to death automatically go into the appeals
> >process, where such grounds as innocence or mental retardation or the
> >convict was not mirandized in Czech go on an individual basis through
> >various state and federal courts, ultimately ending up at the US Supreme
> >Court, taking an average of ten years between sentencing and execution.
>
> A duff penal system would be expected to put safeguards in to cover
> it's many errors. Sadly as it runs those safeguards too........
Do you think it would be possible to be a little less vague and
pompous and craft some actual responses to the points I make?
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:5cidlukl9eh4m5gop...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:37:35 GMT, "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> >news:maaclu8gesvqgaco6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:35:58 GMT, "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> If people are in custody, they are no threat.
> >
> > But, of course. Everyone knows inmates do not commit additional crimes
> >while in prison (like escaping from it, for example).
>
> Well with a duff penal system, you are not going to have anyone with
> the brains to order cells complete with doors I suppose.
> >
> > And if you actually believe this, I can get you a real good deal on a
> >bridge in Brooklyn.
> >
> >
> >
> > If killers are released
> >> to murder again, your penal system is duff. If you have a defective
> >> system, then granted you cannot rely on it to keep prisoners secure.
> >> If the system that is so full of shortcomings is party to trying &
> >> convicting people, I think it's safe to assume that a good few
> >> innocents have gone to their deaths.
> >
> > Assuming is one thing. Proving is another. Nobody has been able to do
> >that. In fact, I have asked Desi twice to do so in this very thread, and he
> >has taken to it like a vampire to garlic.
> >
>
> I cannot prove it. I wouldn't stake too much cash on your statement
> though.
Nuff' said. There is something called 'semper praesumitur pro negante,'
that I would hope you are familiar with. The presumption is ALWAYS in
the negative, in any factual or logical argument. You, or anyone, having
advanced the proposition that innocents have been executed, have the
obligation to PROVE that proposition. Until then it remains an unproven
opinion.
Now, not for your sake, but for the sake of others, I do 'believe' we
did execute a number of innocents in the period 1900-1940. I
am less sure we did from 1940-Furman. And I am absolutely
convinced (although there is certainly no mathematical
CERTAINTY), that we have NOT executed an innocent post-Furman.
Further, the period up until European nations abolished the DP,
clearly shows that some European nations murdered more
innocents than we can conceive of being murdered. One literally
retches when thinking about that indescribable loss of innocent
life. The backlash from that most vicious of times in Europe,
has created a force which has now become hypocritical in
believing the DP is wrong. Now believing that murderers, both
individually and on that most monstrous of scales, should
enjoy a 'right to life,' regardless of how many 'rights to life,'
THEY have extinguished.
PV
> HN
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:gm9cluc4t09tfamck...@4ax.com...
You are presuming you 'have' grey matter, Hugh. A presumption
that has been disproved many times over here. I can find
more 'grey matter' in my refrigerator than exists in your
racist head.
> >BTW -- You've simply proven you are an anti-Semite,
> >once again.
>
> You missed "bigot" out. That's very unlike you PV. Calm down, ease off
> on whatever substance you are high on and I'm sure you will be able to
> cut & paste your crud once more.
>
I need not remark over and over, on what everyone can already
clearly see. Of course you're a bigot. You've simply graduated
to 'fanatic bigot.'
PV
> HTH
>
>
> HN
>
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:maaclu8gesvqgaco6...@4ax.com...
Crap... utter crap. And obviously people who are dead, are
even less of a threat.
PV
>
> HN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:o4bclu4u8fd886jr9...@4ax.com...
It's called 'pick a Palestine terrorist,' you nitwit. Just find one
and ask him/her. But by calling it 'crud,' you obviously disagree
with my stating that someone saying all Jews should be pushed
into the Red Sea, can hardly be rational about anything. So
I can presume you find it RATIONAL for a Palestinian terrorist
to say 'all Jews should be pushed into the Red Sea.'
> >
> >> PV, I am forced to the conclusion that you are a nasty
> >> obnoxious stranger to the truth.
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO... umm.. pot...kettle..black. It is obvious
> >that YOU are the 'nasty obnoxious stranger to the truth.'
> >There is NO 'truth' to any statement that the DP is 'state
> >murder.' It is just hysterical raving, which defies any
> >logical analysis of holding 'truth.' The terms are
> >mutually exclusive under any examination of 'truth.'
> >Everyone KNOWS there is no 'truth' to what cannot
> >logically be. You might as well have said 2 +2 = 5,
> >and expect everyone to believe you have 'spoken the
> >truth.'
> >
> I have already provided you with the meaning of the word murder. I
> will not do it again.
>
Well, I gave you MY source. What's the matter, sport?
Nonetheless, the OED states that MURDER is 'The most
heinous kind of criminal homicide. Law, defined as the
unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought..'
The STATE decides what is 'criminal,' sport. Using the
LAW. The STATE MAKES LAW... and does not create
a LAW which makes its LAWS UNLAWFUL.
PV
>
> HN
>
> >PV
> >>
> >> HN
> >
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:21dcluc610c9or6gu...@4ax.com...
Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables."
It's not a sack of salt you should worry about, Hugh. But
being turned into a pillar of salt as you gleefully look back
at 'Sodom.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:9To59.507$mn5....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:f5k59.238604$XH.59...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> > > On 10 Aug 2002 16:12:57 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Subject: Re: Maybe the antis now have the opportunity to prove an
> executed
> > > >inmate innocent
> > > >From: Hugh Neary spamstopper@net
> > > >Message-id: <41s9luc999rubaarl...@4ax.com>
> > > >
> > > >On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 01:21:13 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> > > ><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> > > >>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:07:36 GMT, pat...@hotmail.com (Vlad " I am
> > > >>> from THE NETHERLANDS you morons" Drac) wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >>about guilt or innocence.
> > > >>> >
> innocents
> > > >>> >are executed without any proof. So let's see what you guys come up
> > > >>> >with in this particular case.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Several dear old ladies in Salem.
> > > >>
> > > >>Huh???? The Salem 'witch hunts'??? Hugh, your brain seems to be
> > > >>parked diagonally in a parallel universe.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>PV
> > > >>
> > > >I can see how this would fail to register PV. Can you not see that a
> > > >legal system that starts out rotten is only likely to get worse over
> > > >time. Your ancestors flippantly sent innocents to their doom on
> > > >trumped up witchcraft charges. At least we in Europe had a scientific
> > > >test based on the "witches" specific gravity to ensure no innocent was
> > > >burnt at the stake.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >===============================
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Uh......... Hugh, I hate to break this to you old buddy, but during the
> time of
> > > >the Salem Witch trials, American had not yet been founded. We were a
> british
> > > >"colony" governed by British law. That means that all legal actions was
> done
> > > >under His Majesty's rule. Which not only included the lack of certain
> rights
> > > >for the colonialst. but witch burning and eraticating unfreiendly
> indians
> > > >includine those indians who supported the French.
> > >
> > > Yes, but they're YOUR ancestors.
> > >
> > > I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's
> > > undesirables. Pity the Indians had to suffer, but at least it means
> > > Europe is nice, civilised and doesn't have the DP.
> > >
> > Hugh's conclusion that Europe was 'cleansed of it's undesirables'????
> >
> > PV
>
> Don't really know what he is on about but then I rarely
> understand Hugh's peregrinations. Perhaps he is referring to
> Home Sapiens supplanting Neanderthals?
>
Yeah.. right. What's the matter with you John? I know you've
condemned Hugh before, but this is perhaps the most disgusting
comment of any he's made here. I'll tell you what 'he is on
about.' The implication is clear. It is a reference to 'ethnic
cleansing,' from the holocaust to the former Yugoslavian republic.
Perhaps his next step is to suggest that the U.K. 'ethnically cleanse'
Northern Ireland of all Catholics.
PV
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
>news:5cidlukl9eh4m5gop...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:37:35 GMT, "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
>> >news:maaclu8gesvqgaco6...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:35:58 GMT, "GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If people are in custody, they are no threat.
>> >
>> > But, of course. Everyone knows inmates do not commit additional
>crimes
>> >while in prison (like escaping from it, for example).
>>
>> Well with a duff penal system, you are not going to have anyone with
>> the brains to order cells complete with doors I suppose.
>
> And what, pray tell, system are you talking about, specifically?
>Or how about just coming out and saying what you mean to infer with this
>tone?
You have a useless system. You pay the "ground troops" peanuts so you
hardly get the most dedicated or capable staff now, do you?
HN
Hugh Neary
Wow PV I'm impressed. Big latin words too. Are you into quantum
mechanics?
>
>Now, not for your sake, but for the sake of others, I do 'believe' we
>did execute a number of innocents in the period 1900-1940. I
>am less sure we did from 1940-Furman. And I am absolutely
>convinced (although there is certainly no mathematical
>CERTAINTY), that we have NOT executed an innocent post-Furman.
>Further, the period up until European nations abolished the DP,
>clearly shows that some European nations murdered more
>innocents than we can conceive of being murdered. One literally
>retches when thinking about that indescribable loss of innocent
>life.
If you lterally retch PV, it wouldn't be any thoughts going through
the device you use for a mind. More likely whatever drugs you were on
three posts ago.
> The backlash from that most vicious of times in Europe,
>has created a force which has now become hypocritical in
>believing the DP is wrong. Now believing that murderers, both
>individually and on that most monstrous of scales, should
>enjoy a 'right to life,' regardless of how many 'rights to life,'
>THEY have extinguished.
A further killing brings no one back, serves no useful purpose and
only gets those members of the human race that are lower down in the
gene pool excited and unpredictable when they drool over another state
murder.
HN
>
>PV
>
>> HN
>>
>>
>>
Hugh Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
You attributed that statement to me PV. I was defining your accusation
as crud.
For the record I do not think it is rational for a Palestinian
terrorist to push or threaten to push all Jews into the sea, red or
otherwise. In short they would be "bleedin' loonies" to attempt same.
>
>
>> >
>> >> PV, I am forced to the conclusion that you are a nasty
>> >> obnoxious stranger to the truth.
>> >>
>> >ROTFLMAO... umm.. pot...kettle..black. It is obvious
>> >that YOU are the 'nasty obnoxious stranger to the truth.'
>> >There is NO 'truth' to any statement that the DP is 'state
>> >murder.' It is just hysterical raving, which defies any
>> >logical analysis of holding 'truth.' The terms are
>> >mutually exclusive under any examination of 'truth.'
>> >Everyone KNOWS there is no 'truth' to what cannot
>> >logically be. You might as well have said 2 +2 = 5,
>> >and expect everyone to believe you have 'spoken the
>> >truth.'
>> >
>> I have already provided you with the meaning of the word murder. I
>> will not do it again.
>>
>Well, I gave you MY source. What's the matter, sport?
>Nonetheless, the OED states that MURDER is 'The most
>heinous kind of criminal homicide. Law, defined as the
>unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought..'
>The STATE decides what is 'criminal,' sport. Using the
>LAW. The STATE MAKES LAW... and does not create
>a LAW which makes its LAWS UNLAWFUL.
>
Missed a few bit's from the OED, havn't we PV?
Or is your attention span too short?
HN
>
>PV
>>
>> HN
>>
>> >PV
>> >>
>> >> HN
>> >
>>
>>
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> cleansing,' from the holocaust to the former Yugoslavian republic.
> Perhaps his next step is to suggest that the U.K. 'ethnically cleanse'
> Northern Ireland of all Catholics.
>
> PV
>
This is what comes of treating a totally inadequate person
seriously. Hugh is a particularly stupid man, he has never
added anything of worth to any discussion on this news
group. Why, compared with him, Desmond is a Solomon.
Nevertheless you still manage to wilfully misunderstand even his
feeble arguments. The 'cleansing' that Hugh was referring
to was not the various holocausts suffered by Europe
but the mass emigration to America. How you can read
what you do into what he posted is one of those mysteries
that constantly provokes and amuses the rest of us.
Hugh Neary
wrote:
snip
>
>Rubbish. The uk system was based on the scenario of sentencing the killers
>to death then commuting it. Very few that deserved to die actually did. they
>seemed to spenf more time hanging the innocent. The right to live dependent
>on money seems to be a bugbear which afflicts the US dudes where they are
>guilty until proven innocent
Why are only city dwellers guilty until proven innocent?
>
>
>>
>> [Similar to the US now I suppose]
>
I'm sure that killers took great notice of their repreive chances when
faced with the law.
Pity they didn't have laptops so they could punch in the overall
hanging rate for the past year say, and the statistics over the
previous ten years. They could then have a computer generated pintout
to be issued to other members of the gang in order to allow them to
debate whether to resist arrest or not. Such a document could even be
presented to the Judge & jury as "mitigating circumstances".
Incubus you display a level of naivety that appears to be totally
unbounded.
HTH
HN
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:22:10 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
> >
> >Rubbish. The uk system was based on the scenario of sentencing the
killers
> >to death then commuting it. Very few that deserved to die actually did.
they
> >seemed to spenf more time hanging the innocent. The right to live
dependent
> >on money seems to be a bugbear which afflicts the US dudes where they are
> >guilty until proven innocent
>
> Why are only city dwellers guilty until proven innocent?
who said anything about city dwellers?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> [Similar to the US now I suppose]
> >
>
> I'm sure that killers took great notice of their repreive chances when
> faced with the law.
>
> Pity they didn't have laptops so they could punch in the overall
> hanging rate for the past year say, and the statistics over the
> previous ten years. They could then have a computer generated pintout
> to be issued to other members of the gang in order to allow them to
> debate whether to resist arrest or not. Such a document could even be
> presented to the Judge & jury as "mitigating circumstances".
LOL
>
> Incubus you display a level of naivety that appears to be totally
> unbounded.
No my freind, its opinions based on facts i have read, mostly on the net.
We are going round in circles here Hugh.
Hugh Neary
wrote:
>
>"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
>news:cv0flucsj9t7esml5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:22:10 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> >
>> >Rubbish. The uk system was based on the scenario of sentencing the
>killers
>> >to death then commuting it. Very few that deserved to die actually did.
>they
>> >seemed to spenf more time hanging the innocent. The right to live
>dependent
>> >on money seems to be a bugbear which afflicts the US dudes where they are
>> >guilty until proven innocent
>>
>> Why are only city dwellers guilty until proven innocent?
>
>who said anything about city dwellers?
You did.
Hmmm! Naivety^2 methinks
HN
GeneralZod
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> You have a useless system.
Really, now? As compared to what? Yours? And where exactly do you
live? Oz? (Not Australia, but The Wizard of. As in the Emerald City.)
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:ukrelu0mlqvepqqii...@4ax.com...
No. I leave that to Earl.. who knows nothing else. I am into trying
to put logic into this, rather than arguing that 'proof' exists through
'opinion.' It doesn't you know... because rational people know it
doesn't. In fact, you have simply agreed with me, but you don't
like the way it has shown that no one can 'prove it.'
>
> >
> >Now, not for your sake, but for the sake of others, I do 'believe' we
> >did execute a number of innocents in the period 1900-1940. I
> >am less sure we did from 1940-Furman. And I am absolutely
> >convinced (although there is certainly no mathematical
> >CERTAINTY), that we have NOT executed an innocent post-Furman.
> >Further, the period up until European nations abolished the DP,
> >clearly shows that some European nations murdered more
> >innocents than we can conceive of being murdered. One literally
> >retches when thinking about that indescribable loss of innocent
> >life.
>
> If you lterally retch PV, it wouldn't be any thoughts going through
> the device you use for a mind. More likely whatever drugs you were on
> three posts ago.
>
If you think paedomorphic insults from YOU bother me, let
me quickly disabuse you from that thought. An insult from
a bigot, is the best of compliments. As far as I'm concerned,
there is more 'morality' inside of my toaster oven than you
have in total. In my subjective opinion, of course.
> > The backlash from that most vicious of times in Europe,
> >has created a force which has now become hypocritical in
> >believing the DP is wrong. Now believing that murderers, both
> >individually and on that most monstrous of scales, should
> >enjoy a 'right to life,' regardless of how many 'rights to life,'
> >THEY have extinguished.
>
> A further killing brings no one back, serves no useful purpose and
> only gets those members of the human race that are lower down in the
> gene pool excited and unpredictable when they drool over another state
> murder.
>
ROTFLMAO. Hugh.. you're a moron... plain and simple. A bilious
sad, bigoted moron. No one knows what the 'H' in the middle name
of 'Jesus H. Christ' stands for. But your middle name is
obviously 'shit-for-brains.' You 'drool' over murder when you say
"just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's
undesirables." This most certainly imply that you offer 'thanks' to
God that millions of people were 'cleansed' (murdered) for the
sake of your bigoted agenda. I find it totally disgusting that both
you and desi (my flopping drunken puppet) have 'prayed' for murderer.
It's an insult to our species.
PV
> HN
> >
> >PV
> >
> >> HN
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:i2L59.31782$U44.1634015@newsfep2-gui...
> > Perhaps his next step is to suggest that the U.K. 'ethnically cleanse'
> > Northern Ireland of all Catholics.
> >
> > PV
> >
>
>
> This is what comes of treating a totally inadequate person
> seriously. Hugh is a particularly stupid man, he has never
> added anything of worth to any discussion on this news
> group. Why, compared with him, Desmond is a Solomon.
> Nevertheless you still manage to wilfully misunderstand even his
> feeble arguments. The 'cleansing' that Hugh was referring
> to was not the various holocausts suffered by Europe
> but the mass emigration to America. How you can read
> what you do into what he posted is one of those mysteries
> that constantly provokes and amuses the rest of us.
>
'ethnic cleansing.' If Hugh wished to imply what you claim he
did, that word would not exist in his comment, since 'migration'
is a word that MEANS what you say. Or he would even use the
words 'leaving' or 'left,' Europe. But to 'cleanse' Europe, is to 'rid'
of undesirables. Not through 'voluntary' action of those
departing, who he claims are 'undesirables,' but through
the actions of the one DOING the 'cleansing.' Migration means
a voluntary move. Cleansing means an involuntary move of
the presumed 'dirt,' or 'filth,' or 'morally repugnant,' by the one
doing the 'cleansing.' 'Cleansing' does not happen without
effort on the part of the one DOING the 'cleansing'. To
cleanse' does not imply voluntarily departure of the 'dirt' or 'filth,' as it
would in 'migration.' It represents an 'expulsion' or a 'purge,' to
rid of things that defile. And the holocaust, and the atrocities
in the former Yugoslavian republics are involuntary 'cleansing,'
NOT voluntary migration. 'To Cleanse' relates directly
to 'To Purge,' and 'To Purge' relates directly to 'To rid of
objectionable, alien, or extraneous elements or members.'
There is no VOLUNTARY meaning in 'cleanse' as there
is in 'migration.'
So I repeat... What's the matter with you John?
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message news:l9seluse5ni4h6ler...@4ax.com...
AVOIDED doing so, by the way I phrased it. It was not an 'accusation,'
but an observation. You should really not have the 'guilty conscience,'
I see you have, if you didn't see yourself in the mirror. If I had said
"When someone murders, we can hardly expect them to provide a rational
explanation for that murder," that would certainly NOT be a claim that
you are a murderer.
> For the record I do not think it is rational for a Palestinian
> terrorist to push or threaten to push all Jews into the sea, red or
> otherwise. In short they would be "bleedin' loonies" to attempt same.
Yeah.. yeah.. yeah.. you're just a big, warm and fuzzy, humanitarian.
As long as "Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables."
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> PV, I am forced to the conclusion that you are a nasty
> >> >> obnoxious stranger to the truth.
> >> >>
> >> >ROTFLMAO... umm.. pot...kettle..black. It is obvious
> >> >that YOU are the 'nasty obnoxious stranger to the truth.'
> >> >There is NO 'truth' to any statement that the DP is 'state
> >> >murder.' It is just hysterical raving, which defies any
> >> >logical analysis of holding 'truth.' The terms are
> >> >mutually exclusive under any examination of 'truth.'
> >> >Everyone KNOWS there is no 'truth' to what cannot
> >> >logically be. You might as well have said 2 +2 = 5,
> >> >and expect everyone to believe you have 'spoken the
> >> >truth.'
> >> >
> >> I have already provided you with the meaning of the word murder. I
> >> will not do it again.
> >>
> >Well, I gave you MY source. What's the matter, sport?
> >Nonetheless, the OED states that MURDER is 'The most
> >heinous kind of criminal homicide. Law, defined as the
> >unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought..'
> >The STATE decides what is 'criminal,' sport. Using the
> >LAW. The STATE MAKES LAW... and does not create
> >a LAW which makes its LAWS UNLAWFUL.
> >
> Missed a few bit's from the OED, havn't we PV?
>
> Or is your attention span too short?
>
Your problem with me is that my 'attention span,' in respect
to all of your comments, is too long.
If one part of the OED states that 'murder,' is 'criminal,'
another part cannot imply it is NOT criminal. It can only
imply usages which represent figurative, hyperbolic, or
rhetorical meaning, such as 'I murdered him at tennis,'
are not criminal. Those PHYSICAL acts (the 'real' killing
of one INDIVIDUAL by another, in an unlawful act) which
constitute MURDER are ALWAYS 'criminal.' And you
will find no country ANYWHERE, that has a justice
system which does not have the 'criminal' act of murder
as a crime in its criminal statutes. Murder is a criminal
act. The DP is a penalty for that criminal act, in some
cases. Claiming the DP resembles murder, does NOT
diminish the DP.. it diminishes the perception of MURDER.
In every case where abolitionists would hope to twist the
meaning of the word 'murder,' they disgrace themselves,
by hoping to forget the violence contained in that most
disgusting of INDIVIDUAL human acts. If you believe that
the DP is 'murder,' then you must also believe that 'imprisonment'
is 'kidnapping.' In which case, the entire Justice System
collapses under the weight of your own stupidity. Since
we can no longer execute NOR incarcerate, without
presuming we have committed a criminal act.
PV
> HN
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:i2L59.31782$U44.1634015@newsfep2-gui...
>
out Hugh is an inadequate stupid man and his terminology
reflects his inadequacies and stupidities. However, to a very
limited extent, the great migration to America did have an
ethnic component within it. The Great Hunger in the mid
1840's in Ireland produced millions of Irish immigrants,
the pogroms initiated in Russia justified by the Czar as
ethnic cleansing gave rise to hundreds of thousands of
Jewish immigrants both to America and Western Europe.
It is clear that to any reasonable person (I suppose that
excludes you) that this is what the silly man meant. After
all the crocodile tears about the suffering of the Indians
could only refer to the 19th century not the 20th. I hope
you can swallow your pride here (difficult for you I know)
and admit that you have chased this red herring as far as
it can swim.
incubus
"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:49:20 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Neary" <spamstopper@net> wrote in message
> >news:cv0flucsj9t7esml5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:22:10 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> snip
> >> >
> >> >Rubbish. The uk system was based on the scenario of sentencing the
> >killers
> >> >to death then commuting it. Very few that deserved to die actually
did.
> >they
> >> >seemed to spenf more time hanging the innocent. The right to live
> >dependent
> >> >on money seems to be a bugbear which afflicts the US dudes where they
are
> >> >guilty until proven innocent
> >>
> >> Why are only city dwellers guilty until proven innocent?
> >
> >who said anything about city dwellers?
>
> You did.
where? I see no mention if city dwellers
>
> Hmmm! Naivety^2 methinks
more likely miscomprehension on your part
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:p2S59.2494$Cy3.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
and hate for the Jews, there is no question in MY mind that
he was directly referring to the holocaust... explicitly. I
cannot believe that you find the phrase "cleansed of it's (sic)
undesirables," to have a benign meaning outside of racial
involuntary expulsion or extermination. Both of those are
within the context of Hugh's words. And both of them are
what happened in Europe, in recent history (OUR lifetime).
This is not a 'Salem witch hunt' argument. This is about
events we are well aware of, and cannot blame on 'ignorance,'
but must surely place the blame on 'evil.' One need only
do a search on the net for the twin words 'holocaust' and
'cleansing' to see that the connection is REAL. In fact, the
German word which signified the start of the holocaust
was 'Judenrein' --- 'pure of Jews' --- and 'rein' is the source
of 'reinig' which is 'cleanse.' This is NOT a word that has
any other meaning when used in the context of 'cleansed
of undesirables.'
And I would again appreciate it, if you would understand that
when I hold a dialog with you, it is NOT the same as those
I hold with dirtbag and FDP. I would hope that I always
extend a certain degree of respect to your arguments, and
by the same token, I would expect the same in return.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
>
snip
I would have respect for your argument if it made sense
which it doesn't. Let's get this straight. Hugh's opinions
on any matter aren't worth a damn. They have, however,
provided a perfect showcase which demonstrates how you twist
opinions to suit your own convoluted purposes. The 'clue'
to his intent is in his remark about Indians. You will agree
that the massacres and enforced migrations inflicted on
indigenous Americans were largely completed by the end
of the 19th century although injustices continued to be
waged upon them. Having secured your agreement here
you cannot then go on to assert that the ethnic cleansing he
refers to had anything to do with 20th century holocausts.
I note you have completely missed my point that the mass
immigration to America DID have elements of ethnic
cleaning within it although my earlier point about Irish
immigration is debatable.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:MK169.65$jb4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
This is another one of those 'arguments' which will never
be resolved, and need to be left to the 'eye of the beholder.'
So others can again examine that 'argument,' the EXACT
words we are looking at were "I just thank the Good
Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's (sic) undesirables."
Now, there were NO INDIANS, nor 'witches,' in the thrust of
Hugh's sentence. He used the word 'it's (sic).' Thus,
he is speaking of an 'undesirable' population indigenous to
Europe. Nor can I imagine he was speaking of those who
'migrated' voluntarily for ANY reason. The most benign
meaning one can place into that sentence is that they
were 'expelled,' or forcibly driven from EUROPE.
We have the statement which contains three essential
words -- Europe -- Cleansing -- undesirables. You may
see it one way. I certainly see it another. Neither of us
will agree on the way the other sees it, thus it just needs
to 'sit there' for OTHERS to form their own opinion. I will
always see it my way (as I expect you will always see
it your way). Because I KNOW of Hugh's posting history,
which is that of a bigot. And I know of the 'meaning'
in present day context (and his words were WRITTEN
in the present day) of the word 'cleansing,' in respect
to the elimination of ethnic populations by one means
or another.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
snip
We are picking over the arguments of a bloody fool and,
therefore, can come to all sorts of conclusions although I insist
yours have been twisted to suit your general revulsion of
Hugh and what you call his bigoted viewpoint.(It also
suits your purposes to argue against European 'immorality')
If you could try to treat a fool like him fairly you may stand
some hope of behaving well to others. As it is many a good
argument from you is ruined by intemperance, a casual regard
for the truth and intolerance of viewpoints other than your own.
> v
> Now, there were NO INDIANS, nor 'witches,' in the thrust of
> Hugh's sentence. He used the word 'it's (sic).' Thus,
> he is speaking of an 'undesirable' population indigenous to
> Europe. Nor can I imagine he was speaking of those who
> 'migrated' voluntarily for ANY reason.
Lets look at said sentence again:
"I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was cleansed of it's
undesirables. Pity the Indians had to suffer, but at least it means
Europe is nice, civilised and doesn't have the DP"
Almost completely nonsensical and nasty to boot. But
there is no doubt that the cleansing he refers to precedes
the suffering of the Indians and that means he is NOT
referring to the holocaustrs.of the 20th century. You
just don't want to accept this reasonable conclusion
because it doesn't suit your argument. It is this attitude
which continues to make you a figure of fun among
those who are your inferiors in debate in so many
other ways.
The most benign
> meaning one can place into that sentence is that they
> were 'expelled,' or forcibly driven from EUROPE.
Many were. You have only to sit in the great hall in
Ellis Island, as I have, and study the reports of
immigrants 'escaping' to the America of the early 20th
century, to realise that there was a 'forcible' element
many of their decisiions to uproot themselves and
their families. Some, like the Russian and Polish
Jews, WERE driven out and many others were
expelled because of political reasons.
> We have the statement which contains three essential
> words -- Europe -- Cleansing -- undesirables. You may
> see it one way. I certainly see it another. Neither of us
> will agree on the way the other sees it, thus it just needs
> to 'sit there' for OTHERS to form their own opinion. I will
> always see it my way (as I expect you will always see
> it your way). Because I KNOW of Hugh's posting history,
> which is that of a bigot. And I know of the 'meaning'
> in present day context (and his words were WRITTEN
> in the present day) of the word 'cleansing,' in respect
> to the elimination of ethnic populations by one means
> or another.
>
> PV
>
'I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW'. No you don't!
You don't bloody know - all you think you know
is what you want to believe and that isn't the same
thing as knowledge at all, it's sheer naked prejudice.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:dPn69.1370$0U4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
not amount to a hill of beans. Since I do 'know'
what constitutes 'cleansing,' in respect to 'undesirables,'
in present day context. Perhaps you'd like to look at
the OED, and enter 'ethnic cleansing,' to find that even
the OED recognizes the meaning behind the word
'cleansing' when used in the context of 'human undesirables.'
You may not have it in the CD-Rom version, but it exists
in the on-line new edition 'draft entry March 2002.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETHNIC CLEANSING n.
[< ETHNIC a. + CLEANSING vbl. n. Cf. Serbian and Croatian
etnikoienje (prob.later as a phrase than in English, but see
also CLEANSING vbl. n.), Russian ètnieskaja istka. Cf. earlier
ethnically clean adj. s.v. ETHNICALLY adv.]
The purging, by mass expulsion or killing, of one ethnic or
religious group by another, esp. from an area of former cohabitation.
Cf. earlier CLEANSING vbl. n. Originally used of (and afterwards
most strongly associated with) the actions of the various nationalities
in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. This and associated terms are
often regarded as simple euphemisms.
1991 Washington Post 2 Aug. A22/5 The Croatian political and
military leadership issued a statement Wednesday declaring that
Serbia's ‘aim..is obviously the ethnic cleansing of the critical areas
that are to be annexed to Serbia’. 1994 N. MALCOLM Bosnia xvi.
246 Ethnic cleansing was not a by-product of the war. It was a
entral part of the entire political project which the war was intended
to achieve. 1996 M. CHAPMAN Southern Afr. Literatures IV. ii. 283
When.. [he] talks wildly of restoring Angola to Africans he probably
means to the majority Ovimbundu he is not simply threatening
‘ethnic cleansing’ against the Mbundu. 2001 Daily Record (Glasgow)
(Electronic ed.) 3 Aug., His crimes were so repulsive they forced the
West to intervene to stop the horror of ethnic cleansing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I do know the source, and meaning of the German
practice of 'Judenrein,' which can translate into 'Cleansing
of Jews,' prior to and during WW II. Prior to that point the
meaning of 'cleansing' in respect to human 'undesirables'
did not exist. Certainly not in the time of the Indians or the
Witch trials. There is a CERTAIN prejudice in Hugh's
words. And there is a certain denial of that prejudice
in your words. Although you have criticized desmond and
Hugh on some occasions, I detect a reluctance to do
so unless overwhelming evidence exists as to the meaning
of their words. You may wish to excuse them when it is
not 'certain' as to their meaning.. but given the entire
body of their various comments, I find nothing to be confused
about as to the general intent of those comments.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:dPn69.1370$0U4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > 'I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW'. No you don't!
> > You don't bloody know - all you think you know
> > is what you want to believe and that isn't the same
> > thing as knowledge at all, it's sheer naked prejudice.
> >
> You may emphasize it all you wish .. and it will still
> not amount to a hill of beans.
Emphasise what and what won't amount to a hill
of beans? Your prejudice?
Since I do 'know'
> what constitutes 'cleansing,' in respect to 'undesirables,'
> in present day context.e
We should all know what it means in 'present day
context' but Hugh and I were NOT referring to
'present day context'. How obtuse can you be, PV?
Perhaps you'd like look at
> the OED, and enter 'ethnic cleansing,' to find that even
> the OED recognizes the meaning behind the word
> 'cleansing' when used in the context of 'human undesirables.'
> You may not have it in the CD-Rom version, but it exists
> in the on-line new edition 'draft entry March 2002.'
See above.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> ETHNIC CLEANSING n.
snipped for brevity.
>
> And I do know the source, and meaning of the German
> practice of 'Judenrein,' which can translate into 'Cleansing
> of Jews,' prior to and during WW II. Prior to that point the
> meaning of 'cleansing' in respect to human 'undesirables'
> did not exist. Certainly not in the time of the Indians or the
> Witch trials. There is a CERTAIN prejudice in Hugh's
> words.
Yes there is, along with general nastiness and confused
thinking.
And there is a certain denial of that prejudice
> in your words.
No there isn't but I don't expect you to recognise
that.
Although you have criticized desmond and
> Hugh on some occasions, I detect a reluctance to do
> so unless overwhelming evidence exists as to the meaning
> of their words.
Evidence will do, it doesn't have to be overwhelming.
You may wish to excuse them when it is
> not 'certain' as to their meaning.. but given the entire
> body of their various comments, I find nothing to be confused
> about as to the general intent of those comments.
>
> PV
>
If I was to judge everyone of your comments by
the "entire body of'" your "various comments" I wouldn't
accept one word of what you posted. As it is I try
to treat most posts, there are exceptions, as if they
were from new subscribers.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Cew69.2690$0U4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:F5v69.181836$s8.34...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:dPn69.1370$0U4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> snip
> > > >
> > > 'I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW'. No you don't!
> > > You don't bloody know - all you think you know
> > > is what you want to believe and that isn't the same
> > > thing as knowledge at all, it's sheer naked prejudice.
> > >
> > You may emphasize it all you wish .. and it will still
> > not amount to a hill of beans.
>
> Emphasise what and what won't amount to a hill
> of beans? Your prejudice?
>
MY interpretation of a statement I see as 'prejudice.' Your
particular attempt to discredit what I see, by calling ME
what I see in others, is reminiscent of dirtbag calling ME
a 'racist,' because I recognized that HE was a racist. I
do KNOW what the OED, and other sources tell me about
the word 'cleansing.' Others may see that word differently.
That's up to them.
>
> Since I do 'know'
> > what constitutes 'cleansing,' in respect to 'undesirables,'
> > in present day context.e
>
> We should all know what it means in 'present day
> context' but Hugh and I were NOT referring to
> 'present day context'. How obtuse can you be, PV?
>
Umm... 'obtuse' is a word I believe you are trying to now
manipulate. I see you as trying to be 'obtuse.' Hoping
to change the words themselves, into your interpretation.
While I would hope to leave that interpretation to others, having
formed my own interpretation.
>
>
>
> Perhaps you'd like look at
> > the OED, and enter 'ethnic cleansing,' to find that even
> > the OED recognizes the meaning behind the word
> > 'cleansing' when used in the context of 'human undesirables.'
> > You may not have it in the CD-Rom version, but it exists
> > in the on-line new edition 'draft entry March 2002.'
>
> See above.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > ETHNIC CLEANSING n.
>
> snipped for brevity.
>
>
> >
> > And I do know the source, and meaning of the German
> > practice of 'Judenrein,' which can translate into 'Cleansing
> > of Jews,' prior to and during WW II. Prior to that point the
> > meaning of 'cleansing' in respect to human 'undesirables'
> > did not exist. Certainly not in the time of the Indians or the
> > Witch trials. There is a CERTAIN prejudice in Hugh's
> > words.
>
> Yes there is, along with general nastiness and confused
> thinking.
>
> And there is a certain denial of that prejudice
> > in your words.
>
> No there isn't but I don't expect you to recognise
> that.
>
Well, when you tell me that I am 'prejudiced' because I SEE
prejudice that seems to represent a certain denial. You are
denying it, by claiming 'I' am prejudiced.
> Although you have criticized desmond and
> > Hugh on some occasions, I detect a reluctance to do
> > so unless overwhelming evidence exists as to the meaning
> > of their words.
>
> Evidence will do, it doesn't have to be overwhelming.
>
I have yet to see any 'evidence' to the contrary. The words
speak a certain way to ME. Others will have to decide for
themselves. I've never denied that YOU may see it in one
particular way... but you seem intent on DEMANDING that
I MUST see it your way. Well, I don't. And others may make
up their minds for themselves.
>
>
> You may wish to excuse them when it is
> > not 'certain' as to their meaning.. but given the entire
> > body of their various comments, I find nothing to be confused
> > about as to the general intent of those comments.
> >
> > PV
> >
>
> If I was to judge everyone of your comments by
> the "entire body of'" your "various comments" I wouldn't
> accept one word of what you posted. As it is I try
> to treat most posts, there are exceptions, as if they
> were from new subscribers.
>
That's the EXACT point. How you view my comments is
IMMATERIAL to how others view them. You are trying
to FORCE others to view a particular comment (Hugh's
sentence) as you do. I am simply saying how 'I' view it,
and suggest OTHERS determine for themselves. If
anyone is being dogmatically stubborn here, I believe it
is you. Because I don't CARE how YOU view that sentence.
I don't CARE how ANYONE views that sentence. But you
seem overly concerned and wish to demand how I see
it. I am simply telling you how 'I' see that sentence. You
can hardly tell me NOT to view it as such. How I 'see' it,
is similar to 'free speech.' Hugh certainly has 'free speech,'
to say what he feels. And I, in turn, have a certain 'right'
to interpret his 'free speech' from my subjective viewpoint.
And one also needs to examine YOUR 'possible' bias by
the sentence you have just constructed, on how you view
my comments.
PV
jr...@nauticom.net
any situation. Typical career criminal/killer.
Next they would have us believing the sun rises in the west.
"God Bless America"
Vlad Drac wrote:
> Kutzner executed for 1996 slaying
>
> By Mark Passwaters/Staff Writer
>
> Protesting his innocence until his final moments, Richard William
> Kutzner was executed Wednesday evening for the killing of a Spring
> woman in 1996. Kutzner, 59, had not only received a death sentence for
> the killing of Kathryn Harrison, but later received a second death
> sentence for killing Rita Van Huss in Harris County 17 days before
> Harrison's death. The sentence was carried out in the death chamber of
> the Huntsville "Walls" Unit.
>
> Looking upward as he lay on the gurney, Kutzner paused for a moment
> after he was asked if he had any last words. He then turned his head
> and addressed Harrison's daughter, who was in attendance.
>
> "Rebecca, I understand you wanted this day to come, and you got what
> you wanted," he said. "But I didn't kill your mother. Two guys that
> worked for me did, and one of them is still out there."
>
> In an interview last Wednesday with The Huntsville Item, Kutzner said
> he believed any one of five people -- including Harrison's husband --
> could have committed the crimes.
>
> As he continued his statement, Kutzner addressed the issue which had
> brought some attention to his case.
>
> "If Mr. (Montgomery County District Attorney Michael) had allowed the
> DNA evidence, I would have been exonerated," he said. "The evidence is
> going to be given to (O.J. Simpson attorney and DNA expert) Barry
> Scheck. He is going to get this tested."
>
> Kutzner repeatedly claimed DNA evidence found at the scene of the
> crime, including a long black hair found on the wire used to strangle
> Harrison, would have proven his innocence.
>
> "If I can get a DNA test, I can prove someone else was at the scene of
> the crime," he said last week. "It should have never gotten to this
> point. All I want is a fair trial."
>
> Kutzner's request for DNA testing was rejected on the grounds Harrison
> was killed in a public place and many different strands of DNA could
> have been found. The testing, according to the Texas Court of Criminal
> Appeals, would have "simply muddied the waters" in the case.
>
> DNA evidence not withstanding, the evidence against Kutzner was
> strong. Cable ties similar to those use to bind the arms and legs of
> Harrison and Van Huss were found at Kutzner's house, and tin snips
> used to cut the cable ties were found in his truck. Kutzner also
> cashed a $300 money order which was reported stolen from Van Huss'
> purse. Still, Kutzner told the Item he was "absolutely innocent" and
> had been "railroaded."
>
> "If there is any justice in this world, please use this (DNA testing)
> to keep other people from being where I'm at," he said in his final
> statement.
>
> Looking at "Walls" warden Neill Hodges, Kutzner said, "Warden, this is
> murder, just as surely as the people that killed Rebecca's mother."
>
> "I guess that's it, send me home," he said.
>
> As the fatal dose of chemicals was started at 6:23 p.m., Kutzner said,
> "I can taste it. I'm gone."
>
> In a matter of seconds, Kutzner emitted a long, deep sigh and slipped
> into unconsciousness. He was pronounced dead at 6:33 p.m.
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped>
>Umm... 'obtuse'
You're quite correct in pulling him up on this one, FW.
It should of course be spelt 'obtuze'. The OED says. Honest.
(ho ho ho, FW is a fuckwit>
<content free blither snipped>
w00f
H. Neary
wrote:
Not really, at least I know the meaning of the words I use.
HN
Regards
Hugh Neary
(Please remove "crudbuster" to reply direct
H. Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
Perhaps you should make your postings a little more clear? It's
difficult to follow your line of "reasoning" at the best of times PV,
but when you start ranting & raving at "full whack", I think you
should take extra care on how you phrase things.
>
>> For the record I do not think it is rational for a Palestinian
>> terrorist to push or threaten to push all Jews into the sea, red or
>> otherwise. In short they would be "bleedin' loonies" to attempt same.
>
>Yeah.. yeah.. yeah.. you're just a big, warm and fuzzy, humanitarian.
>As long as "Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables."
What's up with that? If a thing or a person is undesirable to a
society is it not reasonable to arrange removal?
Rubbish!! There is precious little difference between the DP and
murder. The end result is another killing and the DP just renders
"society" a little more barbaric in the process.
>
>In every case where abolitionists would hope to twist the
>meaning of the word 'murder,' they disgrace themselves,
>by hoping to forget the violence contained in that most
>disgusting of INDIVIDUAL human acts. If you believe that
>the DP is 'murder,' then you must also believe that 'imprisonment'
>is 'kidnapping.' In which case, the entire Justice System
>collapses under the weight of your own stupidity. Since
>we can no longer execute NOR incarcerate, without
>presuming we have committed a criminal act.
Wow PV this is deep!! Such profound logic. So Europes next step is to
abolish prisons eh? Presumably fines will go too, then we will all
live in a state of blissfull happiness throwing flower petals over
each other.
PV, you are a complete nincompoop!
HN
>
>PV
A Planet Visitor
"H. Neary" <crudbust...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:t7bslu8c60rgkaeji...@4ax.com...
Perhaps you should READ my postings, rather than having a
knee-jerk reaction. It is not my responsibility to dumb-down
my comments to insure you are capable of understanding them.
> >
> >> For the record I do not think it is rational for a Palestinian
> >> terrorist to push or threaten to push all Jews into the sea, red or
> >> otherwise. In short they would be "bleedin' loonies" to attempt same.
> >
> >Yeah.. yeah.. yeah.. you're just a big, warm and fuzzy, humanitarian.
> >As long as "Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables."
>
> What's up with that? If a thing or a person is undesirable to a
> society is it not reasonable to arrange removal?
>
A 'person' is NOT a thing. You are not speaking of removing
a cocklebur from your trousers. If we presume that 'all innocents
are equal,' we have no more 'right' to remove them, then they
have a 'right' to remove us. That is not to say it hasn't been
done, by EVERY society at one time or another. It simply says
that no matter how often it is done, it cannot be presumed to be
'right.' And this was certainly what you said in your comment,
when you stated "I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was
cleansed of it's undesirables" Unless you presume that those
'undesirables' are somehow NOT innocents, but 'guilty' by
virtue of their birth, rather than their acts. But I believe that
is EXACTLY what you think.
Rubbish??? What the hell are you talking about? Is murder
a CRIMINAL act, as determined by society to be such? Is it
defined in both the sense of English and the sense of the Law
to be ILLEGAL, and a violation of the Law? Of course it is.
There is not ONE society that has not defined 'murder' to be
a crime in its criminal statutes. IS the DP seen in such a light?
Of course not. Even in those societies that have abolished the
DP, it is certainly not stated as 'illegal' since that would be an
illogical idea. Because 'penalties' for crimes cannot be 'illegal'
by definition. They can only be abolished. Which is clearly
what the EU has done in its protocols. Clearly a penalty
for a crime is NOT unlawful. It is defined as "A punishment
imposed for breach of law, rule, or contract; a loss, disability, or
disadvantage of some kind, either ordained by law to be inflicted
for some offence." There is nothing in there that presumes a
penalty of death is somehow different from a 'penalty for a crime.'
What is actually more 'barbaric' is the presumption that murder
constitutes a lesser crime. Clearly there must be the existence
of a 'first cause' to the DP. One necessarily MUST be convicted
of the crime of murder to be executed. While there is no 'first cause'
to murder, other than it meets the definition of an INDIVIDUAL
taking the life of another in an act which society has determined
is unlawful.
>
> >
> >In every case where abolitionists would hope to twist the
> >meaning of the word 'murder,' they disgrace themselves,
> >by hoping to forget the violence contained in that most
> >disgusting of INDIVIDUAL human acts. If you believe that
> >the DP is 'murder,' then you must also believe that 'imprisonment'
> >is 'kidnapping.' In which case, the entire Justice System
> >collapses under the weight of your own stupidity. Since
> >we can no longer execute NOR incarcerate, without
> >presuming we have committed a criminal act.
>
> Wow PV this is deep!! Such profound logic. So Europes next step is to
> abolish prisons eh? Presumably fines will go too, then we will all
> live in a state of blissfull happiness throwing flower petals over
> each other.
>
Undoubtedly it is 'too deep' for you. But that's YOUR problem. Not
mine. The point is, the DP is a punishment for the crime of murder.
If you claim that it, in itself, is the crime of murder, then it must also
be noted that such a claim logically supports the belief that
punishment for a crime with incarceration is itself also a crime.
Which can be stated in the same definition of kidnapping, in the
criminal statutes. Since you have compared another penalty to
the crime of murder, in the criminal statutes. Both the DP and
incarceration are penalties for crimes, and you cannot separate
one PARTICULAR penalty to call it a crime, without recognizing
that you are claiming ALL penalties are crimes.
> PV, you are a complete nincompoop!
>
That's about the sum total of your argument. And doesn't amount
to shit in respect to providing any meaningful content. But I've come
to expect that from many of the British (FDP) posters here. It all
goes back to that 'retracted penis' you have, where you believe
you can impose YOUR values on another society. Of course,
anyone can have their say... but it would be nice if the 'say'
represented some sort of logic, or common sense. Nothing I've
seen lately from that side of the Atlantic meets that criteria.
It's all hysterical gibberish, such as your current claim that the
DP is murder, while presuming you can also "Thank the good
Lord" that you were able to rid Europe of your undesirables.
It seems you do not consider murderers to be among those
undesirables. I can imagine when they catch the murderers
who committed the 'probable murders' of Holly Wells and Jessica
Chapman, you will not find them 'undesirable' enough to execute.
PV
H. Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
Sadly I did read your comments PV. Can your comments be dumbed-down
any further? I suspect you would have a bit of a job.
>
>> >
>> >> For the record I do not think it is rational for a Palestinian
>> >> terrorist to push or threaten to push all Jews into the sea, red or
>> >> otherwise. In short they would be "bleedin' loonies" to attempt same.
>> >
>> >Yeah.. yeah.. yeah.. you're just a big, warm and fuzzy, humanitarian.
>> >As long as "Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables."
>>
>> What's up with that? If a thing or a person is undesirable to a
>> society is it not reasonable to arrange removal?
>>
>A 'person' is NOT a thing. You are not speaking of removing
>a cocklebur from your trousers. If we presume that 'all innocents
>are equal,' we have no more 'right' to remove them, then they
>have a 'right' to remove us. That is not to say it hasn't been
>done, by EVERY society at one time or another. It simply says
>that no matter how often it is done, it cannot be presumed to be
>'right.' And this was certainly what you said in your comment,
>when you stated "I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was
>cleansed of it's undesirables" Unless you presume that those
>'undesirables' are somehow NOT innocents, but 'guilty' by
>virtue of their birth, rather than their acts. But I believe that
>is EXACTLY what you think.
You great gormless twaddlebrain. What has innocence or guilt to do
with it. A plague carrier would be undesirable, an anarchist may not
be the most welcome member of society either. Race has nothing to do
with it. Are we itching to get "bigot" of the clipboard then PV?
Yes it is. I see the DP as a crime against humanity, as I'm sure do
many other civilised people on this planet.
> Even in those societies that have abolished the
>DP, it is certainly not stated as 'illegal' since that would be an
>illogical idea. Because 'penalties' for crimes cannot be 'illegal'
>by definition. They can only be abolished. Which is clearly
>what the EU has done in its protocols. Clearly a penalty
>for a crime is NOT unlawful.
Depends on the penalty & who carries it out.
But it isn't PV. The DP is only a punishment for murder in a few
backward uncivilised countries.
Yes PV, I'm sure that adding a further death to the toll would do
wonders for justice in the UK.
A Planet Visitor
"H. Neary" <crudbust...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:n2l1mucp58pbo2duh...@4ax.com...
No further, Hugh. And it's unfortunate that you STILL can't
comprehend them. So as Johnson remarked... it is not my
responsibility to bring you to a further understanding.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> For the record I do not think it is rational for a Palestinian
> >> >> terrorist to push or threaten to push all Jews into the sea, red or
> >> >> otherwise. In short they would be "bleedin' loonies" to attempt same.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah.. yeah.. yeah.. you're just a big, warm and fuzzy, humanitarian.
> >> >As long as "Europe was cleansed of it's undesirables."
> >>
> >> What's up with that? If a thing or a person is undesirable to a
> >> society is it not reasonable to arrange removal?
> >>
> >A 'person' is NOT a thing. You are not speaking of removing
> >a cocklebur from your trousers. If we presume that 'all innocents
> >are equal,' we have no more 'right' to remove them, then they
> >have a 'right' to remove us. That is not to say it hasn't been
> >done, by EVERY society at one time or another. It simply says
> >that no matter how often it is done, it cannot be presumed to be
> >'right.' And this was certainly what you said in your comment,
> >when you stated "I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was
> >cleansed of it's undesirables" Unless you presume that those
> >'undesirables' are somehow NOT innocents, but 'guilty' by
> >virtue of their birth, rather than their acts. But I believe that
> >is EXACTLY what you think.
>
> You great gormless twaddlebrain. What has innocence or guilt to do
> with it. A plague carrier would be undesirable, an anarchist may not
> be the most welcome member of society either. Race has nothing to do
> with it. Are we itching to get "bigot" of the clipboard then PV?
Oh... we ALL know what you mean by 'undesirable,' Hugh. as we
ALL know what you mean by 'cleansed.'
Of course, 'subjectively' you can also 'see' that the sun rises in
the West, although it certainly doesn't. In that respect, if you
feel you can call the DP murder, then I can certainly say that
subjectively I see all abolitionists as murderers. It's all
subjective then. Because if even ONE convicted murderer,
murders again, ABOLITION was the cause. I do not claim
this, so do not put words in my mouth. I am simply illustrating
how silly it is to state that a subjective view can become an
objective fact.
> > Even in those societies that have abolished the
> >DP, it is certainly not stated as 'illegal' since that would be an
> >illogical idea. Because 'penalties' for crimes cannot be 'illegal'
> >by definition. They can only be abolished. Which is clearly
> >what the EU has done in its protocols. Clearly a penalty
> >for a crime is NOT unlawful.
>
> Depends on the penalty & who carries it out.
>
No... not at all. It depends on the definition of 'penalty,' as
defined in the law. If it is defined in the law as a penalty it
is lawful. If it is not defined in the law it is NOTHING, in
respect to the law. What you are saying again places YOUR
subjective view on it.
Subjective again, Hugh. Subjective. You cannot state something
like that, without saying 'IMHO,' or something at least on that order.
Because it appears you are stating an AXIOM. And there is no
objective truth to what you say, other than YOUR view of what is
'backward' and 'uncivilized.' I could (but I do not, since I am more
clever than you) state that 'the absence of the DP as a punishment
for murder exists only in a few backward uncivilized countries.'
And it would make as much sense (none whatsoever) as your
clumsily worded 'statement.'
Well, that is debatable, but by no means is your contrary view true.
H. Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
SNIP
>
>No further, Hugh. And it's unfortunate that you STILL can't
>comprehend them. So as Johnson remarked... it is not my
>responsibility to bring you to a further understanding.
>
white noise.
We? You mean you speak for other poor misfortunates? What sad tosser
would have such a limited command of logic to require something such
as yourself to represent it's views?
Why not? can you prove that statement?
> In that respect, if you
>feel you can call the DP murder, then I can certainly say that
>subjectively I see all abolitionists as murderers. It's all
>subjective then. Because if even ONE convicted murderer,
>murders again, ABOLITION was the cause. I do not claim
>this, so do not put words in my mouth.
Putting words in your mouth PV, would be like consigning the works of
Bach to the compost heap.
> I am simply illustrating
>how silly it is to state that a subjective view can become an
>objective fact.
>
>> > Even in those societies that have abolished the
>> >DP, it is certainly not stated as 'illegal' since that would be an
>> >illogical idea. Because 'penalties' for crimes cannot be 'illegal'
>> >by definition. They can only be abolished. Which is clearly
>> >what the EU has done in its protocols. Clearly a penalty
>> >for a crime is NOT unlawful.
>>
>> Depends on the penalty & who carries it out.
>>
>No... not at all. It depends on the definition of 'penalty,' as
>defined in the law. If it is defined in the law as a penalty it
>is lawful. If it is not defined in the law it is NOTHING, in
>respect to the law. What you are saying again places YOUR
>subjective view on it.
O/K subjective or not, I am right, you are wrong. It is wrong to take
life without good reason full stop.
No, I stand by what I say. Once Britain was in support of the DP, but
we advanced from that in much the same way as we advanced from horse
drawn carriages and slaughtering nations not as well advanced as
ourselves. We have klearnt our lessons on the path to civilisation.
Alas PV you have a long way to go. Your sick society is only too happy
to despatch its own citizens at the slightest whim and when that fails
to keep the "peasants" appeased, you have to start blowing Afghans
Iraqis and Canadians all over the planet. The trouble is PV, you lot
are so used to state sanctioned murder, that if the state doesn't
supply a regular output of corpses for you to drool over you are
liable to get somewhat "restless" arn't you.
It is true. Although you will never see it PV it is a fact. It
certainly isn't debateable as your sick society has provided ample
proof to corroborate my view.
>
HN
>PV
>
>> HN
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Hugh Neary
>>
Regards
A Planet Visitor
"H. Neary" <crudbust...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:f705mukb6i8qah2ur...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:13:59 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> SNIP
> >
> >No further, Hugh. And it's unfortunate that you STILL can't
> >comprehend them. So as Johnson remarked... it is not my
> >responsibility to bring you to a further understanding.
> >
> To comprehend your drivel PV, would be like applying intelligence to
> white noise.
>
Such as when you speak of how happy you are that Europe
has rid itself of 'undesirables.'
Now, now, Hugh... you know you're an anti-Semite, why not just
come out and say it, and get it over with.
Hardly any sense to that even if you expected it to be an insult.
I've already told you that an insult from you is something to be
desired, rather than unwanted. It would be a connection to 'evil'
were you NOT to insult me. In fact I relish ALL insults from
morons who believe they can pontificate in a presumed 'evangelist-
morality,' while secretly loving murderers. it's the biggest
hypocritical piece of garbage I've ever come across.
> > I am simply illustrating
> >how silly it is to state that a subjective view can become an
> >objective fact.
> >
> >> > Even in those societies that have abolished the
> >> >DP, it is certainly not stated as 'illegal' since that would be an
> >> >illogical idea. Because 'penalties' for crimes cannot be 'illegal'
> >> >by definition. They can only be abolished. Which is clearly
> >> >what the EU has done in its protocols. Clearly a penalty
> >> >for a crime is NOT unlawful.
> >>
> >> Depends on the penalty & who carries it out.
> >>
> >No... not at all. It depends on the definition of 'penalty,' as
> >defined in the law. If it is defined in the law as a penalty it
> >is lawful. If it is not defined in the law it is NOTHING, in
> >respect to the law. What you are saying again places YOUR
> >subjective view on it.
>
> O/K subjective or not, I am right, you are wrong. It is wrong to take
> life without good reason full stop.
>
That makes it no longer subjective, but you trying to make FACT
from opinion. Clearly, Hitler was one of the last ones who tried that.
You really need to get a grasp on reality, Hugh. Since, any connection
between 'your reality' and 'actual reality' is purely coincidental.
So what???? You 'stand by what you say'?? What an idiot. If
you said the sun rose in the West, and then saw it come up in
the East, I suppose you'd say 'I stand by what I say.' You certainly
cannot define 'backward' or 'uncivilized' except in your OPINION.
Which means I can define it OTHERWISE in MY OPINION
> Once Britain was in support of the DP, but
> we advanced from that in much the same way as we advanced from horse
> drawn carriages and slaughtering nations not as well advanced as
> ourselves.
Umm... Hugh... pray tell me, how is the world possibly made
a 'lesser' place if we do not keep all murderers alive? What makes
the world 'better' by keeping them ALL alive to die a natural
death, with a smile on their lips as they remember the brutalizations,
rapes, and murders they committed on a few young girls and even infants?
How are 'we' made 'better' by keeping ALL murderers alive until they
die a natural death? I am not speaking of 'slaughtering nations' or
any of your hysterical ravings. I am speaking of PROVEN murderers.
What is your 'justification' for keeping them ALL alive, regardless of
how brutal and degrading the acts they perpetrated in taking a great
number of lives of others? What do YOU tell the victims? What is
society supposed to tell the victims and the new potential victims?
>We have klearnt our lessons on the path to civilisation.
ROTFLMAO. Get out of here...
> Alas PV you have a long way to go. Your sick society is only too happy
> to despatch its own citizens at the slightest whim and when that fails
> to keep the "peasants" appeased, you have to start blowing Afghans
> Iraqis and Canadians all over the planet. The trouble is PV, you lot
> are so used to state sanctioned murder, that if the state doesn't
> supply a regular output of corpses for you to drool over you are
> liable to get somewhat "restless" arn't you.
Seems to me as if you're the one doing all the drooling, Hugh.
Do you really love murderers so much?
Hugh... simply... IMHO, you are a hypocritical swine. Your idea is
that Europe has happily rid itself of 'undesirables,' which presumes
you don't see murderers as 'undesirables' and thus you must see
murder itself as something desirable. So I would say that you
should carefully look in the mirror, before you moralize in pious
self-adoration of your own presumed moral superiority. And
clearly I also see you as an anti-Semite, who sees nothing wrong
with murdering Jews, and finds nothing wrong with harboring
murderers as well. Pardon me for having MY OPINION.
PV
> HN
H. Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"H. Neary" <crudbust...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:f705mukb6i8qah2ur...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:13:59 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
>> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>> SNIP
>> >
>> >No further, Hugh. And it's unfortunate that you STILL can't
>> >comprehend them. So as Johnson remarked... it is not my
>> >responsibility to bring you to a further understanding.
>> >
>> To comprehend your drivel PV, would be like applying intelligence to
>> white noise.
>>
>The problem is that I understand YOUR dementia all too easily.
>Such as when you speak of how happy you are that Europe
>has rid itself of 'undesirables.'
>
They went volountarily PV. If they were happy, then I am happy.
Perhaps your ancestors were amongst those that couldn't "cut it" in
Europe. If so I can only rejoice that they didn't muck up Europes gene
pool with the likes of yourself.
I've been through this with you on quite a number of occasions PV. You
persist in twisting things to suit your own somewhat weird ideas.
Isn't it time you got the bigot word out for an airing too PV. This
has been a little scarce in your ramblings thus far.
I really doubt whether it is possible to insult the likes of yourself
PV. Anyway at least I have some morals and do not join the baying
cabal in slobbering & drooling over the next victim to be slaughtered
by the state.
>
>
>> > I am simply illustrating
>> >how silly it is to state that a subjective view can become an
>> >objective fact.
>> >
>> >> > Even in those societies that have abolished the
>> >> >DP, it is certainly not stated as 'illegal' since that would be an
>> >> >illogical idea. Because 'penalties' for crimes cannot be 'illegal'
>> >> >by definition. They can only be abolished. Which is clearly
>> >> >what the EU has done in its protocols. Clearly a penalty
>> >> >for a crime is NOT unlawful.
>> >>
>> >> Depends on the penalty & who carries it out.
>> >>
>> >No... not at all. It depends on the definition of 'penalty,' as
>> >defined in the law. If it is defined in the law as a penalty it
>> >is lawful. If it is not defined in the law it is NOTHING, in
>> >respect to the law. What you are saying again places YOUR
>> >subjective view on it.
>>
>> O/K subjective or not, I am right, you are wrong. It is wrong to take
>> life without good reason full stop.
>>
>That makes it no longer subjective, but you trying to make FACT
>from opinion. Clearly, Hitler was one of the last ones who tried that.
>You really need to get a grasp on reality, Hugh. Since, any connection
>between 'your reality' and 'actual reality' is purely coincidental.
It is a fact PV. Perhaps you are incapable of recognising right or
wrong.
You mean in your opinion the sun sinks/ rises, do you not PV?
O/K have it whatever way you like PV. It is both a fact & my
opinion that you are backward & uncivilised.
>
>> Once Britain was in support of the DP, but
>> we advanced from that in much the same way as we advanced from horse
>> drawn carriages and slaughtering nations not as well advanced as
>> ourselves.
>
>Umm... Hugh... pray tell me, how is the world possibly made
>a 'lesser' place if we do not keep all murderers alive?
Because you pander to the sickos that drool after blood.
> What makes
>the world 'better' by keeping them ALL alive to die a natural
>death, with a smile on their lips as they remember the brutalizations,
>rapes, and murders they committed on a few young girls and even infants?
You can back up this statement PV, or are you supplying your warped
and twisted opinions as fact?
>How are 'we' made 'better' by keeping ALL murderers alive until they
>die a natural death? I am not speaking of 'slaughtering nations' or
>any of your hysterical ravings. I am speaking of PROVEN murderers.
>What is your 'justification' for keeping them ALL alive, regardless of
>how brutal and degrading the acts they perpetrated in taking a great
>number of lives of others? What do YOU tell the victims? What is
>society supposed to tell the victims and the new potential victims?
The victims are dead PV. If you cannot hold people in prison, it isn't
a reason to execute them. As for the potential victims, I'm sure if
you informed them of their tax savings by waving goodbye to convicted
felons after a year or so in prison, they would fully understand.
>
>>We have klearnt our lessons on the path to civilisation.
>
>ROTFLMAO. Get out of here...
>
>> Alas PV you have a long way to go. Your sick society is only too happy
>> to despatch its own citizens at the slightest whim and when that fails
>> to keep the "peasants" appeased, you have to start blowing Afghans
>> Iraqis and Canadians all over the planet. The trouble is PV, you lot
>> are so used to state sanctioned murder, that if the state doesn't
>> supply a regular output of corpses for you to drool over you are
>> liable to get somewhat "restless" arn't you.
>
>Seems to me as if you're the one doing all the drooling, Hugh.
>Do you really love murderers so much?
Hmm! the standard DP merchants ploy. Anyone that isn't a drooling
sicko throwback must be a murderer lover.
PV you are free to hold your opinions, sadly all they do is reflect
your own somewhat distorted image of the world. I see little point in
trying to enlighten you further PV as your ramblings indicate clearly
that you have absorbed nothing from my previous posts. Why do you keep
dragging Hitler & the Jews up BTW, do you have something in your
background that makes you uncomfortable about that aspect of European
History, a little family embarrasment or something? If your grandad
was into throwing the Zyclon B into the "showers" I wouldn't hold it
against you personally PV. I am well aware that a lot of the European
undesireables had things they wanted top hide when they departed from
these civilised lands, but I do think that something in your
background is probably responsible for making you bitter & twisted.
Get it off your chest PV. You may even find that you develop a more
balanced view of the planet and no longer feel tempted to paste bigot
into every post.
HTH
HN
A Planet Visitor
"H. Neary" <crudbust...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:aa87mucjegqug31d3...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:40:33 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> >
> >"H. Neary" <crudbust...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:f705mukb6i8qah2ur...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:13:59 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> >> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> >> SNIP
> >> >
> >> >No further, Hugh. And it's unfortunate that you STILL can't
> >> >comprehend them. So as Johnson remarked... it is not my
> >> >responsibility to bring you to a further understanding.
> >> >
> >> To comprehend your drivel PV, would be like applying intelligence to
> >> white noise.
> >>
> >The problem is that I understand YOUR dementia all too easily.
> >Such as when you speak of how happy you are that Europe
> >has rid itself of 'undesirables.'
> >
> They went volountarily PV. If they were happy, then I am happy.
> Perhaps your ancestors were amongst those that couldn't "cut it" in
> Europe. If so I can only rejoice that they didn't muck up Europes gene
> pool with the likes of yourself.
>
that your comment speaking of 'cleansed,' did not imply anything
'voluntary' about it. You were clearly referring to 'involuntary'
removal of 'undesirables,' by referring to a word that has a very clear
meaning in present day context.
Okay... it perhaps needs to be repeated... you're a bigot.
Neither do I. But neither do I slobber and drool over keeping the
likes of Theodore Frank, Kenneth McDuff, John Wayne Gacy,
and Ted Bundy alive, as you do.
> >
> >
> >> > I am simply illustrating
> >> >how silly it is to state that a subjective view can become an
> >> >objective fact.
> >> >
> >> >> > Even in those societies that have abolished the
> >> >> >DP, it is certainly not stated as 'illegal' since that would be an
> >> >> >illogical idea. Because 'penalties' for crimes cannot be 'illegal'
> >> >> >by definition. They can only be abolished. Which is clearly
> >> >> >what the EU has done in its protocols. Clearly a penalty
> >> >> >for a crime is NOT unlawful.
> >> >>
> >> >> Depends on the penalty & who carries it out.
> >> >>
> >> >No... not at all. It depends on the definition of 'penalty,' as
> >> >defined in the law. If it is defined in the law as a penalty it
> >> >is lawful. If it is not defined in the law it is NOTHING, in
> >> >respect to the law. What you are saying again places YOUR
> >> >subjective view on it.
> >>
> >> O/K subjective or not, I am right, you are wrong. It is wrong to take
> >> life without good reason full stop.
> >>
> >That makes it no longer subjective, but you trying to make FACT
> >from opinion. Clearly, Hitler was one of the last ones who tried that.
> >You really need to get a grasp on reality, Hugh. Since, any connection
> >between 'your reality' and 'actual reality' is purely coincidental.
>
> It is a fact PV. Perhaps you are incapable of recognising right or
> wrong.
>
ROTFLMAO. That implication alone, demonstrates that you haven't
the slightest clue what 'subjective' even is.
No. I mean if you claim it 'rose' from the West, the last time
you saw it rise. And it's almost hilarious that YOU would
attempt to remark on MY grammar. Please... I know desi...
and YOU are NO DESI.
> O/K have it whatever way you like PV. It is both a fact & my
> opinion that you are backward & uncivilised.
Then your opinion means nothing, Hugh. But we already knew
that.
> >
> >> Once Britain was in support of the DP, but
> >> we advanced from that in much the same way as we advanced from horse
> >> drawn carriages and slaughtering nations not as well advanced as
> >> ourselves.
> >
> >Umm... Hugh... pray tell me, how is the world possibly made
> >a 'lesser' place if we do not keep all murderers alive?
>
> Because you pander to the sickos that drool after blood.
>
It would seem that YOU pander to the MURDERERS. They seem
to be the ones drooling after blood.
> > What makes
> >the world 'better' by keeping them ALL alive to die a natural
> >death, with a smile on their lips as they remember the brutalizations,
> >rapes, and murders they committed on a few young girls and even infants?
>
> You can back up this statement PV, or are you supplying your warped
> and twisted opinions as fact?
>
Oh, pardon me.. You mean they DON'T drool over the murders they've
committed? Have you ever read the comments that Theodore Frank
made while awaiting his execution? While Theodore Frank was
at Atascadero, he wrote this in a notebook; "Why do I want to degrade
and humiliate children? Sadism...I enjoy the humiliation. Defile the
innocent. Make them scared of sex. It's dirty. I didn't have a happy
childhood, neither will they...Revenge." Or Kenneth McDuff, who
told investigators "Killing a woman is like killing a chicken. They
both squawk." Do you think Ted Bundy didn't salivate in bed, and
bring himself to a climax at night, thinking about the women he'd
murdered? Wake up, Hugh.
> >How are 'we' made 'better' by keeping ALL murderers alive until they
> >die a natural death? I am not speaking of 'slaughtering nations' or
> >any of your hysterical ravings. I am speaking of PROVEN murderers.
> >What is your 'justification' for keeping them ALL alive, regardless of
> >how brutal and degrading the acts they perpetrated in taking a great
> >number of lives of others? What do YOU tell the victims? What is
> >society supposed to tell the victims and the new potential victims?
>
> The victims are dead PV. If you cannot hold people in prison, it isn't
> a reason to execute them. As for the potential victims, I'm sure if
> you informed them of their tax savings by waving goodbye to convicted
> felons after a year or so in prison, they would fully understand.
>
Oh, yeah... The 'victims' are dead. They no longer matter. Of course,
there is a little question of the NEXT victim. Did you perhaps miss
my 'list' yesterday? And if we cannot hold people in prison, it is
quite certainly a reason to execute them, if we expect they will
murder again. Don't give me any shit about money, either. Since
you now seem to believe we can cost-out a human life.
> >
> >>We have klearnt our lessons on the path to civilisation.
> >
> >ROTFLMAO. Get out of here...
> >
> >> Alas PV you have a long way to go. Your sick society is only too happy
> >> to despatch its own citizens at the slightest whim and when that fails
> >> to keep the "peasants" appeased, you have to start blowing Afghans
> >> Iraqis and Canadians all over the planet. The trouble is PV, you lot
> >> are so used to state sanctioned murder, that if the state doesn't
> >> supply a regular output of corpses for you to drool over you are
> >> liable to get somewhat "restless" arn't you.
> >
> >Seems to me as if you're the one doing all the drooling, Hugh.
> >Do you really love murderers so much?
>
> Hmm! the standard DP merchants ploy. Anyone that isn't a drooling
> sicko throwback must be a murderer lover.
If the shoe fits, Hugh. I certainly don't drool over the taking of
ANY life. We should weep, and not elate over the need to take
a human life, for our own sanity, our own morality, and our own
safety. But by the same token I do not drool over a murderer,
as you seem to be doing.
Well, thank you, sport. Imagine that -- I am free to hold my
opinion. Well, I'll do just that. And I'll do more. I will not
claim my opinion represents any FACTUAL concept of
human nature. Respecting and understanding that OTHERS
hold different concepts. This is something I find lacking in
YOUR opinions, Hugh. They all seem to be raving, lunatic,
holy-roller evangelist shouts that piously pronounce that YOUR
beliefs are the only TRUE way of the world. Need I remark
on some of the dangers in the past we have recognized from
that very same behavior?
> I see little point in
> trying to enlighten you further PV as your ramblings indicate clearly
> that you have absorbed nothing from my previous posts. Why do you keep
> dragging Hitler & the Jews up BTW,
Could that be because you're an anti-Semite and a bigot in general?
Yes... I believe that's the reason.
> do you have something in your
> background that makes you uncomfortable about that aspect of European
> History, a little family embarrasment or something?
It's not the first time that you've implied I'm a Jew. And I can
imagine I have some Jewish blood in me, as my Maternal
roots are from Poland and Russia. And I have 1/16 Indian
from my Fraternal side. But let's hope that doesn't 'frighten'
you, Hugh.
> If your grandad
> was into throwing the Zyclon B into the "showers" I wouldn't hold it
> against you personally PV. I am well aware that a lot of the European
> undesireables had things they wanted top hide when they departed from
> these civilised lands, but I do think that something in your
> background is probably responsible for making you bitter & twisted.
> Get it off your chest PV. You may even find that you develop a more
> balanced view of the planet and no longer feel tempted to paste bigot
> into every post.
>
If it quacks like a duck, that's your first clue that it's a duck. You've
quacked bigotry so often, that it's hard to imagine otherwise. And
certainly your "I just thank the Good Lord that Europe was
cleansed of it's undesirables" leaves NOTHING to the imagination.
PV
> HTH
H. Neary
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
No, the bunch I was referring to were those that went to the US. Not
that it particularly matters anyway. Obviously the idea is not welcome
to your poor befuddled brain. What part of undesireable do you not
understand PV?
Shucks & I thought for a moment I was attempting to communicate with
an impersonator.
BTW for the record PV, I am not a bigot.
I do not give a damn what happens to murderers as long as their
situation does not give out the message that murder is to be
tolerated.
No It's just that your interpretation of subjective is very
subjective.
Having taken my thoughts on the DP to their logical
conclusions PV, I feel justified in pronouncing them right. I am
further supported in my belief of my absolute correctness by the fact
that only incompetent bloodthirsty dimwits attempt to argue with me.
A Planet Visitor
"H. Neary" <crudbust...@iol.ie> wrote in message news:i6hcmu4bf4k3kf57g...@4ax.com...
That's rather clear to me. But of course, it certainly is not clear to
a bigot who equates some particular innocent humans to be
'undesirable.' I believe that was thrashed out a few years ago,
but Europe still finds the concept confusing, if we witness present
day events in the states formed from the former Yugoslavia.
BTW -- for the record, Hugh... anyone who believes a certain segment
of our species is 'undesirable' is by definition, one who is recognized to
be a bigot.
So then you have no objection to giving out the message that some
murderers should be executed to demonstrate that murder will not
be tolerated.
Ummm... hilarious. Subjective is that which cannot be proven
through fact. Objectivity is limited to truth tables, axioms,
mathematical proofs, scientific certainties, or the physical
existence of an object, which represent such objectivity. Holding
an 'opinion' in respect to ANYTHING regarding the DP is
simply an 'opinion' unless some accompanying objective
truth as listed above can be shown. The very idea that YOU
may believe you can define 'morality' makes your view
subjective, and impossible to be stated in objective terms.
Here are examples of the words you've used to claim some
form of objectivity in this dialog alone, and every one of them
simply represent your OPINION, which can be countered by the
OPINION of any other person, and thus hold absolutely NO
objectivity --
(1) "There is precious little difference between the DP and
murder"
Of course there is. One is a crime, the other is a
penalty for that crime. It's as silly as saying there is
'precious little difference between incarceration and
kidnapping.'
(2) "baying cabal in slobbering & drooling over the next victim to
be slaughtered by the state."
Hardly an 'objective' statement by ANY means.
(3) "subjective or not, I am right, you are wrong. It is wrong to take
life without good reason full stop."
This last simply demonstrating that you don't UNDERSTAND
what objectivity even is.
> Having taken my thoughts on the DP to their logical
> conclusions PV, I feel justified in pronouncing them right. I am
> further supported in my belief of my absolute correctness by the fact
> that only incompetent bloodthirsty dimwits attempt to argue with me.
>
As I said... 'feeling' justified is a subjective 'feeling.' It means
NOTHING in the context of PROVING anything other than it
is the way YOU feel. It doesn't say anything about any objective
truth. Since I 'feel' in my subjective view that your views are
mistaken. You may well hold those opinions... I have no
problem with that. But don't try to pass them off as any
'objective' truths... because they are NOT. They are simply
your subjective 'opinions.'
PV
>
> HTH