Bush the TEXECUTIONER
David Wilson
What's up with you crazy Texans/Americans?
How is it that your society gets another sociopath in office?
Do you guys have Sociopathy 101 at Yale?
Richard J
Blaming the President or Governor of a state for execution numbers is
pretty lame, not to mention deliberately stupid and inflammatory.
Governors and Presidents work under the laws applicable to their
positions. Those laws are not made by them, but by the legislators
elected by the people in a democratic republic such as ours. Those
legislators make laws based upon the will of the people.
In Texas, where George W. Bush was governor, he had no power determining
who committed murder or who was charged with capital murder and received
the death penalty. As far as I know, all of those executed during his
six years as governor were sentenced prior to his term in the governor's
mansion just as those executed by the Federal government were tried and
sentenced prior to his current term as President.
In Texas, there is an average wait of slightly over ten years between
sentencing and execution due the the rather lengthy appeals following a
successful death penalty trial. Once sentenced to death, a murderer's
execution may be TEMPORARILY halted by the governor one time. After
that one temporary delay is given by any governor for a particular
prisoner, the prisoner may not, by law, receive another temporary
reprieve.
A Texas governor may grant clemency and use executive power to change a
death penalty to a life sentence, but he cannot do so of his own
accord. Texas governors may only make such a move if it is recommended
by the Texas Board of Appeals and Paroles. One such case for George
Bush while governor was Henry Lee Lucas.
Now either make some statement of substance or go back to shagging your
wallaby, troll boy.
Teflon
Richard J
>
> le Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:09:13 -0600, dans l'article <3DDFA829...@hotmail.com>, Richard J <ric...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
> >> http://www.ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm
> >>
> >> What's up with you crazy Texans/Americans?
> >>
> >> How is it that your society gets another sociopath in office?
> >> Do you guys have Sociopathy 101 at Yale?
>
>
> > A Texas governor may grant clemency and use executive power to change a
> > death penalty to a life sentence, but he cannot do so of his own
> > accord. Texas governors may only make such a move if it is recommended
> > by the Texas Board of Appeals and Paroles. One such case for George
> > Bush while governor was Henry Lee Lucas.
>
> official position, the truth is slightly different. The Governor appoints
> the members of the Texas Board of Pardons, and their jobs are dependent on
> him. If the Texas Governor wanted to spare a death row inmate, all it
> would take is a call to the members of that Board.
Not necessarily. As I've explained to both you and Jürgen previously,
the Governor does not appoint all the members for a new board when he
takes office. He must await the term of the members previously
appointed by his predecessor to run out, and he cannot remove board
members until that time. Since the terms are staggered, that takes a
while.
Who knows: it might
> even prompt them to meet in person for once, instead of signing away lives
> by fax ...
Desmond, you know that they do meet in person as well as fax
communications. Generally appeals and pardon requests are handled in
three member groups of board members. This is done to facilitate the
load they have. Only in cases where a work group recommends action
requiring a full board review (such as a governor's clemency request)
will they convene as a full board. Decisions made by fax vote are no
less real than by any other. If the members can do the job
electronically, it is no different from any other board doing their jobs
electronically, a common business practice.
As with most governing boards of any type, information is communicated
between members with memos and information packets, most often faxed or
e-mail now-a-days. The use of electronic communication is a tool used
across the modern business world to save time. Its use by the Board
denotes that they, like the rest of the modern world, take advantage of
its benefits for the sake of efficiency.
>
> You people can't have it both ways: executive power when it suits you, and
> 'he can't do anything', when it doesn't.
>
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
> http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
I'm not being selective about anything, Desmond. I've told this truth
consistently from the get go. That you, and others used to strong
European central governments where the people exist to serve the
government rather than the other way around fail to understand is, in
itself, understandable.
Teflon
Mar...@city.net
Second "your" rotten ass should have an address at the Huntsville, Ellis
Unit.
Third, Who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
about the President of the USA when you dumb ass is in Ausie land. Get
your rotten ass away from that computer and out in the bush where you
belong.
Fourth, If Mr. Bush ran for Governor after he is done being the
President of the United States of America I would vote for him AGAIN.
At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the earth from
going back on OUR streets, in OUR neighborhoods. God Bless George W
Bush, President, of the United States of America.
dirtdog
cluelessly top posted :
> First of all buzzard breath
'Buzzard breath'?
Hands up who's glad not to be a Yank...
<childish drivel snipped>
--
------------------------
w00f - dirtdog in France
dirtdog @ fruffrant.com
------------------------
A Plenary Verbositor
<Mar...@city.net> wrote:
> First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
Younger?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 01:34:07 +0000
>
>le Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:20:52 -0500, dans l'article
><3DE00D54...@city.net>, Mar...@city.net a dit ...
>
>> First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
>>
>> Second "your" rotten ass should have an address at the Huntsville, Ellis
>> Unit.
>
>There it is ... another admission that what counts ... sorry, 'count's'
>(sic), isn't guilt ...
>
>> Third, Who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
>> about the President of the USA when you dumb ass is in Ausie land. Get
>> your rotten ass away from that computer and out in the bush where you
>> belong.
>
>Where is 'Ausie land' ? Is this a province of 'Newfound' (sic) ? Is the
>capital anywhere near New South Wales ? Can we get there by crossing the
>Severn Bridge ?
>
>> Fourth, If Mr. Bush ran for Governor after he is done being the
>> President of the United States of America I would vote for him AGAIN.
>
>Proof positive that 'universal suffrage' is a bad idea.
>
>> At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the earth from
>> going back on OUR streets, in OUR neighborhoods. God Bless George W
>> Bush, President, of the United States of America.
>
>LOL ... oh Lord, are there really people this stupid on the streets of
>'America' (sic) ??
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 01:34:07 +0000
>Lines: 38
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <faapra...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><3DE00D54...@city.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038101859 22026689 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:26:14 +0000
>
>le Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:09:13 -0600, dans l'article
><3DDFA829...@hotmail.com>, Richard J <ric...@hotmail.com> a dit ...
>
>>> http://www.ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm
>>>
>>> What's up with you crazy Texans/Americans?
>>>
>>> How is it that your society gets another sociopath in office?
>>> Do you guys have Sociopathy 101 at Yale?
>
>{ snip }
>
>> A Texas governor may grant clemency and use executive power to change a
>> death penalty to a life sentence, but he cannot do so of his own
>> accord. Texas governors may only make such a move if it is recommended
>> by the Texas Board of Appeals and Paroles. One such case for George
>> Bush while governor was Henry Lee Lucas.
>
>LOL, come, come Richard. We all know that whilst this might be the
>official position, the truth is slightly different. The Governor appoints
>the members of the Texas Board of Pardons, and their jobs are dependent on
>him. If the Texas Governor wanted to spare a death row inmate, all it
>would take is a call to the members of that Board. Who knows: it might
>even prompt them to meet in person for once, instead of signing away lives
>by fax ...
>
>You people can't have it both ways: executive power when it suits you, and
>'he can't do anything', when it doesn't.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:26:14 +0000
>Lines: 35
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <mokora...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><3DDFA829...@hotmail.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038079946 21626418 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Hugh Neary
>First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
>
>Second "your" rotten ass should have an address at the Huntsville, Ellis
>Unit.
>
>Third, Who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
>about the President of the USA when you dumb ass is in Ausie land. Get
>your rotten ass away from that computer and out in the bush where you
>belong.
>
>Fourth, If Mr. Bush ran for Governor after he is done being the
>President of the United States of America I would vote for him AGAIN.
>At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the earth from
>going back on OUR streets, in OUR neighborhoods. God Bless George W
>Bush, President, of the United States of America.
Many thanks, this explains to the rest of the planet how a retarded
throwback can come to power in the US.
BTW the planet is the big bluish white thing next to the moon
Marylou.
HN
Jürgen
Richard J schrieb in Nachricht <3DDFA829...@hotmail.com>...
When Bush once had to learn that one of the executions under his direction
had not the desired public effect he felt it opportune to backpedal by ca.
the declaration: 'The decision was much more difficult to me than it may
have looked in public'.
Jürgen
David Wilson
> A Texas governor may grant clemency and use executive power to change a
> death penalty to a life sentence, but he cannot do so of his own
> accord. Texas governors may only make such a move if it is recommended
> by the Texas Board of Appeals and Paroles. >
The Governor has power over the PP....the concept is known as "Advise
and Consent"
Your assumed message of substance amounted to drivel in defence of a
sociopath who wants to kill BOTH his own kind and innocent Iraq's for
OIL.
The recent "worst" environmental disaster ever proves what a failure
fossil fuel based economies are, and the evil perpetuated in keeping
it operating to satisfy greedy investors.
Vote for your Green party and give away defending evil scum like Bush
and Powell.
Powell is the genius who considers starving Africans irrational for
stealing to survive.
You sound like a highschool kid who got a hold of Political science yr
One, is that you...or are you a fully blown social darwinist?
David Wilson
> Fourth, If Mr. Bush ran for Governor after he is done being the
> President of the United States of America I would vote for him AGAIN.
> At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the earth from
> going back on OUR streets, in OUR neighborhoods. God Bless George W
> Bush, President, of the United States of America.
Ok...you sound like a maniac...and please, don't email me your tripe.
I'll be ignoring you and anyone who posts in a similar fashion.
Richard J
He's a politician. He says what he thinks (or his handlers think) the
public wants to hear. Sort of like the anti-American rhetoric Germans
heard in their last elections and from their head of state. It's
"politically correct." <it gets votes too>
If you feel I have a low opinion of ALL politicians, you are correct.
As a breed, most of them lay somewhere below a sea worm.
Teflon
Richard J
>
> >
> > A Texas governor may grant clemency and use executive power to change a
> > death penalty to a life sentence, but he cannot do so of his own
> > accord. Texas governors may only make such a move if it is recommended
> > by the Texas Board of Appeals and Paroles. >
>
> The Governor has power over the PP....the concept is known as "Advise
> and Consent"
Actually, he doesn't. He cannot fire members, he can only replace them
when their term expires, and some of those terms extend from the prior
governor's tenure to the middle of the next one elected.
>
> Your assumed message of substance amounted to drivel in defence of a
> sociopath who wants to kill BOTH his own kind and innocent Iraq's for
> OIL.
We already have their oil if we want it.
Your views are biased and overly simplistic. I'm not necessarily
defending Bush. I find him somewhat lacking both as a governor and
president. What I do dislike are people who come here spouting
simplistic one liners and propaganda talking about things they are not
fully conversant in. Perhaps if you wish to use more than the two
functioning cells left in your brain, you would realize that any head of
state in a democratic republic cannot function without the consent of
the people through the approval of the legislature and by actions which
MUST pass the test of constitutionality.
>
<snipped, political advertisement>
> Powell is the genius who considers starving Africans irrational for
> stealing to survive.
He has the right to express that opinion. Now do you wish to put it in
context or continue the one liners?
>
> You sound like a highschool kid who got a hold of Political science yr
> One, is that you...or are you a fully blown social darwinist?
I am who and what I am. You are welcomed to like or dislike that. As
for you, you do not matter to me one way or the other.
Teflon
Jürgen
Richard J schrieb in Nachricht <3DE0EF59...@hotmail.com>...
<......>
>> >A Texas governor may grant clemency and use executive power to change a
>> >death penalty to a life sentence, but he cannot do so of his own
>> >accord. Texas governors may only make such a move if it is recommended
>> >by the Texas Board of Appeals and Paroles. One such case for George
>> >Bush while governor was Henry Lee Lucas.
>> >
>>
>> When Bush once had to learn that one of the executions under his
direction
>> had not the desired public effect he felt it opportune to backpedal by
ca.
>> the declaration: 'The decision was much more difficult to me than it may
>> have looked in public'.
>>
>> Jürgen
>
>He's a politician. He says what he thinks (or his handlers think) the
>public wants to hear.
Nonsense. He knew full well that he held a stay and a subsequent commutation
in his hands, since he knew full well that the voter directly felt his
mercilessness. So he regarded it a necessary political move to relativate
retrospectively his act. But unfortunately he PROVED by this act the degree
of influence and thus direct responsibility for the execution-spree.
<snip>
Jürgen
Richard J
Like I said, he said what the public wanted to hear, just as your
politicians do, Jürgen. Mostly, politicians are scum.
Teflon
Jürgen
Richard J schrieb in Nachricht <3DE103E6...@hotmail.com>...
No, Richard, this is simply no explanation of Bush's behavior as perceived
in this case. Taking in consideration the Texanian mentality it came close
to kind of apology, and such is absolutely not what the guys hand out when
they feel free from responsibility.
To your judgement about politicians; how exactly you'd wish them to be?
Should they represent the average opinion of their voters, or should they
show any personality in their decisions?
Jürgen
Richard J
How many Texans have you actually personally known, Jürgen? I just want
to know what qualifies you as an expert witness on Texans. That might
be what you would do in such a case, but not necessarily what I would
do, or others I know. So just what do you base your assessment on?
>
> To your judgement about politicians; how exactly you'd wish them to be?
> Should they represent the average opinion of their voters, or should they
> show any personality in their decisions?
>
> Jürgen
Here, we ask our politicians to serve the voters rather than the public
to serve the politicians.
Teflon
David Wilson
> > Powell is the genius who considers starving Africans irrational for
> > stealing to survive.
>
> He has the right to express that opinion. Now do you wish to put it in
> context or continue the one liners?
LOL, you moral fraud, social darwinist par excellence.
You obviously aren't offended by the evil comment of Powell, as your
modus operandi of exploiting the weak and vunerable is identicle to
that of your garden variety sociopath.
A Planet Visitor
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3DE148E0...@hotmail.com...
robotic government.
PV
> Teflon
>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
For the benefit of Marylou, I'll attempt to correct her syntax,
punctuation, spelling and grammar. For the amusement of the rest of us,
I'll make some statistical observations.
> First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
This should be:
First of all, buzzard breath, Mr Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
And the judges find:
12 words
3 errors
A good start from Marypoo.
> Second "your" rotten ass should have an address at the Huntsville, Ellis
> Unit.
Secondly, _your_ rotten arse should have an address at the Huntsville,
Ellis Unit.
From the judges:
13 words
4 errors
Marypoo is starting to lose it here, we feel.
> Third, Who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
> about the President of the USA when you dumb ass is in Ausie land. Get
> your rotten ass away from that computer and out in the bush where you
> belong.
Thirdly, who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
about the President of the USA when your dumb arse is in Aussie land?
Get your rotten arse away from that computer and out in the bush where
you belong.
The verdict:
44 words
6 errors
A rare moment of coherence, perhaps?
> Fourth, If Mr. Bush ran for Governor after he is done being the
> President of the United States of America I would vote for him AGAIN.
> At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the earth from
> going back on OUR streets, in OUR neighborhoods. God Bless George W
> Bush, President, of the United States of America.
Fourthly, if Mr Bush runs for Governor after after he is done being the
President of the United States of America, I would vote for him _again_.
At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the Earth from
going back onto _our_ streets, in _our_ neighborhoods. God bless George
W. Bush, President of the United States of America.
And how'd she do with her final, powerful paragraph:
62 words
11 errors (although the judges are having a little trouble counting by
now)
That's a total of 131 original words in the post. In that output, there
are no less than 24 errors.
That's right, over 18% of Marypoo's output is some kind of abuse of the
language. I reckon things'll improve when she gets the operation so
that she can breathe through her nose.
> David Wilson wrote:
>
> > What's up with you crazy Texans/Americans?
> >
> > How is it that your society gets another sociopath in office?
> > Do you guys have Sociopathy 101 at Yale?
Rising to an obvious and none-too-clever troll as well as top posting by
way of reply. What a l4/\/\0r.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> Vote for your Green party and give away defending evil scum like Bush
> and Powell.
Yup. Remember what happened when Nader ran? Cost the Dems the
presidency. Nice going, guys. Well fucking thought out - NOT!
Now I admire Nader as an intellect and as a thinking, caring human being
but WHAT IN BOB'S NAME WAS HE ON WHEN HE DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?
*twitch, twitch*
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> <Mar...@city.net> wrote:
>
> > First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
>
> Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
> Younger?
*giggle*
Richard J
Nope, I only asked that the statement be put in full context. I can
neither be offended nor outraged until I know the context in which the
statement was uttered. Of course, that might make it obvious to all
what your true intent is rather than the purpose you propose such a
statement makes.
Your inability to provide adequate information means you are either
unable to do so because you don't know the story, or you aren't
intelligent enough to express yourself adequately. Being unable to
reply, you again launch in an ad hominem attack against me when I asked
a simple question. That is an old, sad, and not very successful
tactic. If you cannot attack the message attack the messenger, eh?
Why don't you attempt, at least, to support some of your statements? I
know that for you it will be a futile endeavor, but you CAN at least
try. Now why don't you see if more than one synapse at a time works and
attempt an argument at at least the level of low normal intelligence? I
know if you get two or three of your friends together you will be able
to accomplish the feat at at least a sixth grade level. I'll try to
keep my replies at a low enough level that you can understand them.
BTW, learn to use a spell checker. Identical is not spelled "identicle"
You were done no great favor when your teacher used phonics to teach you
spelling.
Teflon
dirtdog
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>le Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:13:36 GMT, dans l'article <jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z. Diablo <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
>>> > First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
>
>>> Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
>>> Younger?
>
>> *giggle*
>
>You bastard ! Those were innocent PEOPLE (sic) who died in those towers !
>How dare you SPIT (sic) on their MEMORY (sic) ??!!
Quite incorrect, Dezi [sic].
That should of course have been,
'How dare you SPIT (sic) on there [sic] MEMORY (sic) ??!!'
w00f
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:30:30 +0000
>
>le Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:13:36 GMT, dans l'article
><jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
>>> > First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
>
>>> Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
>>> Younger?
>
>> *giggle*
>
>You bastard ! Those were innocent PEOPLE (sic) who died in those towers !
>How dare you SPIT (sic) on their MEMORY (sic) ??!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:30:30 +0000
>Lines: 17
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <6vqrra...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3de02999$1...@post.usenet.com>
><jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038184425 22747066 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"David Wilson" <dav...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com...
David...David...David.. are you presuming yourself to be God?
Have you somehow decided for the rest of our species what
is 'moral' and what is 'evil'? For example, I personally (I speak
for no one other than myself), see YOUR comments as rather
immoral and evil. Not just here, but ALL of them. I see you as
presuming you have a Messiah-like ability to claim that YOUR
views MUST be those of the rest of our species. It's a common
affliction among some abolitionists... the taking on of a psychosis
that presumes they (and you) are God. The reference escapes
me just now, but I believe some medical journals have recognized
this mental illness and refer to it as the AbTAG syndrome
(Abolitionists believing They Are God). It's generally attributed
to a neurotic (no, desi -- not erotic) low self-esteem, and the
self-absorbed belief that by raving about the 'morality' and 'evil'
of all those who disagree with your point of view, it somehow
will make YOU become more 'moral' (it doesn't you know -
IMHO - It has quite the opposite effect). There is no doubt in
my mind, that you have somehow either missed a dose or
overdosed on your meds for your AbTAG syndrome. Not
being able to examine your eyes to see if your 'pupils are fixed
and dilated,' and a tremor is exhibited in your jaw, it's impossible
for me to determine which has been responsible for the onset
of your syndrome. Short of a violent act being perpetrated on
you personally, or your family, the cure for AbTAG syndrome
is not that easy. Often intensive therapy is required, and those
meds are important. However, if such a violent act occurs
against you or your family, the complete disappearance of all
symptoms of your affliction has been called 'nothing short of
miraculous' by medical authorities.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
news:jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <3de02999$1...@post.usenet.com>, "A Plenary Verbositor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > <Mar...@city.net> wrote:
> >
> > > First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
> >
> > Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
> > Younger?
>
> *giggle*
>
'giggle' from me, as well.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:6vqrra...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:13:36 GMT, dans l'article <jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z.
Diablo <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
> >> > First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
>
> >> Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
> >> Younger?
>
> > *giggle*
>
> How dare you SPIT (sic) on their MEMORY (sic) ??!!
>
trying to say here. I've never seen Mr. D., ever *giggle* in
respect to 9-11 (although desi finds that tragedy needs a
*giggle* whenever it comes up - and apparently now even
when it doesn't come up). There is nothing wrong with a
*giggle* or two about Bush. Although it gets taken to great
excess at times, by the envious French, who do not have
the 'free speech' to criticize their political leaders that exists
in the U.S. I presume they do so to vent their pent up emotion
toward a land where free speech is permitted[1]. I found it
rather amusing myself. I do believe that 'bitch slapping' I gave
desi in respect to 'For Whom the Bell Tolls,' has affected his
emotional stability again.
[1] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bSKx9.126091%24r7.2296002%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
PV
> --
> Ayatollah Desmond Coughlan |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> in message
> news:jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <3de02999$1...@post.usenet.com>, "A Plenary Verbositor"
> > <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> >
> > > <Mar...@city.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
> > >
> > > Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
> > > Younger?
> >
> > *giggle*
> >
> Although I would never tell 'plenary poopdeck' this... it did get a
> 'giggle' from me, as well.
It's all in the timing and Mr O'Dagnop (is it his real name?) manages
the occasional zinger. Quite a ways to go before his accuracy rate is
truly respectable but that post made up for quite a bit.
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
> In article <DEgE9.282001$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> > in message
> > news:jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > In article <3de02999$1...@post.usenet.com>, "A Plenary Verbositor"
> > > <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> > >
> > > > <Mar...@city.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > First of all buzzard breath Mr. Bush isn't the Governor of Texas.
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring to Buzzard Breath the Elder or Buzzard Breath the
> > > > Younger?
> > >
> > > *giggle*
> > >
> > Although I would never tell 'plenary poopdeck' this... it did get a
> > 'giggle' from me, as well.
>
> It's all in the timing and Mr O'Dagnop (is it his real name?) manages
> the occasional zinger. Quite a ways to go before his accuracy rate is
> truly respectable but that post made up for quite a bit.
>
one who recognized him as a former poster, with the handle odagnop.
Given that, I looked at his past words, and recognized a similiarity
which proved that John was perfectly correct. I once joked that his
real name was Pongado, a lawyer from the Philippines... since that
is odagnop spelled backwards.
PV
Incubus
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
> In article <3DE00D54...@city.net>, Mar...@city.net wrote:
>
> For the benefit of Marylou, I'll attempt to correct her syntax,
> punctuation, spelling and grammar. For the amusement of the rest of us,
> I'll make some statistical observations.
Uh oh. Defense stance number 2 Mr. Q, "attack the poster's use of language"
<snip>
>
> Secondly, _your_ rotten arse should have an address at the Huntsville,
> Ellis Unit.
So where would the rest of the body be? Do they have arse removing clinics
where he/she comes from? Is your backside responsible for all your actions?
When you commit murder and they execute your arse, what do they do with the
rest of you?
> > Third, Who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
> > about the President of the USA when you dumb ass is in Ausie land. Get
> > your rotten ass away from that computer and out in the bush where you
> > belong.
>
> Thirdly, who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
> about the President of the USA when your dumb arse is in Aussie land?
> Get your rotten arse away from that computer and out in the bush where
> you belong.
Thirdly, who the hell are you to even suggest you have something to say
about the President of the USA when you are in Aussie land?
Get away from that computer and out in the bush where
you belong.
Marypoos must get to learn that people are not their jacksies
> > Fourth, If Mr. Bush ran for Governor after he is done being the
> > President of the United States of America I would vote for him AGAIN.
> > At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the earth from
> > going back on OUR streets, in OUR neighborhoods. God Bless George W
> > Bush, President, of the United States of America.
>
> Fourthly, if Mr Bush runs for Governor after after he is done being the
> President of the United States of America, I would vote for him _again_.
> At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the Earth from
> going back onto _our_ streets, in _our_ neighborhoods. God bless George
> W. Bush, President of the United States of America.
shouldn't that be:
Fourthly, if Mr Bush runs for Governor after after he is done being the
President of the United States of America, I would vote for him _again_.
At least he is doing what it takes to keep the scum of the Earth from
going back onto _our_ streets or in _our_ neighborhoods. God bless George
W. Bush, President of the United States of America.
Assuming I understand the sentence correctly
>
> That's right, over 18% of Marypoo's output is some kind of abuse of the
> language. I reckon things'll improve when she gets the operation so
> that she can breathe through her nose.
she can still spell better than I
Note, a person only needs to breath in through his/her nose. Exhaling
through the mouth is perfectly acceptable :-)
Your post was none responsive and time wasting Mr.Q but very funny. :-)
David Wilson
> "David Wilson" <dav...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
Sort of, i'm wizzing to the Omega.
> Have you somehow decided for the rest of our species what
> is 'moral' and what is 'evil'?
I haven't, i've decide for myself, and i'm expressing that view bozo.
For example, I personally (I speak
> for no one other than myself), see YOUR comments as rather
> immoral and evil.
You obviously know nothing of morality, so how about you define Evil
for me?
Not just here, but ALL of them. I see you as
> presuming you have a Messiah-like ability to claim that YOUR
> views MUST be those of the rest of our species.
No, i just understand that my views on the death penalty are based on
the logical expression of my conscience, and the realization that most
killers have been abused, adopted and rejected...not the criteria for
producing upstanding citizens.
. Not
> being able to examine your eyes to see if your 'pupils are fixed
> and dilated,' and a tremor is exhibited in your jaw, it's impossible
> for me to determine which has been responsible for the onset
> of your syndrome. Short of a violent act being perpetrated on
> you personally, or your family, the cure for AbTAG syndrome
> is not that easy. Often intensive therapy is required, and those
> meds are important. However, if such a violent act occurs
> against you or your family, the complete disappearance of all
> symptoms of your affliction has been called 'nothing short of
> miraculous' by medical authorities.
These ridiculous comments mark you as demented.
Make sure you define evil, i know YOU have a substantive definition.
Love and kisses.
David Wilson.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>"David Wilson" <dav...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > > Powell is the genius who considers starving Africans irrational for
>> > > stealing to survive.
>> >
>> > He has the right to express that opinion. Now do you wish to put it in
>> > context or continue the one liners?
>>
>> LOL, you moral fraud, social darwinist par excellence.
>> You obviously aren't offended by the evil comment of Powell, as your
>> modus operandi of exploiting the weak and vunerable is identicle to
>> that of your garden variety sociopath.
>>
>
>David...David...David.. are you presuming yourself to be God?
>Have you somehow decided for the rest of our species what
>is 'moral' and what is 'evil'? For example, I personally (I speak
>for no one other than myself), see YOUR comments as rather
>immoral and evil. Not just here, but ALL of them. I see you as
>presuming you have a Messiah-like ability to claim that YOUR
>views MUST be those of the rest of our species. It's a common
>affliction among some abolitionists...
Well, to get this one straight: Those who ride the high horse to decide over
life and death are who show God-like attitudes. Surely not those who would
voluntarily restrict legal power to penalties which do respect to an
incarcerated's physical integrity.
Jürgen
Jürgen
Richard J schrieb in Nachricht <3DE148E0...@hotmail.com>...
>> >> >> >A Texas governor may grant clemency and use executive power to
change
>> a
>> >> >> >death penalty to a life sentence, but he cannot do so of his own
>> >> >> >accord. Texas governors may only make such a move if it is
>> recommended
>> >> >> >by the Texas Board of Appeals and Paroles. One such case for
George
>> >> >> >Bush while governor was Henry Lee Lucas.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When Bush once had to learn that one of the executions under his
>> >> direction
>> >> >> had not the desired public effect he felt it opportune to backpedal
by
>> >> ca.
>> >> >> the declaration: 'The decision was much more difficult to me than
it
>> may
>> >> >> have looked in public'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >He's a politician. He says what he thinks (or his handlers think)
the
>> >> >public wants to hear.
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense. He knew full well that he held a stay and a subsequent
>> commutation
>> >> in his hands, since he knew full well that the voter directly felt his
>> >> mercilessness. So he regarded it a necessary political move to
relativate
>> >> retrospectively his act. But unfortunately he PROVED by this act the
>> degree
>> >> of influence and thus direct responsibility for the execution-spree.
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Like I said, he said what the public wanted to hear, just as your
>> >politicians do, Jürgen. Mostly, politicians are scum.
>> >
>>
>> No, Richard, this is simply no explanation of Bush's behavior as
perceived
>> in this case. Taking in consideration the Texanian mentality it came
close
>> to kind of apology, and such is absolutely not what the guys hand out
when
>> they feel free from responsibility.
>
>How many Texans have you actually personally known, Jürgen?
To conclude from knowing a couple of individuals to any property represented
above of average in their society is not sound, Richard. The explanation why
is not too difficult.
I just want
>to know what qualifies you as an expert witness on Texans. That might
>be what you would do in such a case, but not necessarily what I would
>do, or others I know. So just what do you base your assessment on?
On observation.
Now back on point. A politician who speaks of his decision as a difficult
one, which emotionally touched him, does this not just for fun.
Particularly: He thereby declares implicitely, but quite well distinctly,
*THAT* he made the decision.
>
>>
>> To your judgement about politicians; how exactly you'd wish them to be?
>> Should they represent the average opinion of their voters, or should they
>> show any personality in their decisions?
>>
>
>Here, we ask our politicians to serve the voters rather than the public
>to serve the politicians.
>
Aside from that I regard less than 25% pro-Bush for too little to justify
the statement above, you sidestepped the question. You firstly expressed
dismay in view of the politicians' attitude to make popular - or even
populist - decisions, and now, secondly, you write they should "serve the
voters".
Again: What is your model of a politician, how should (s)he be? A simple
amplifyer of vox populi, or should personality play a part, too?
Jürgen
Richard J
Exactly, Jürgen. That's why I asked the question. You made a blanket
statement about the way Texas think. I wanted to know upon what basis
you made such a statement.
>
> I just want
> >to know what qualifies you as an expert witness on Texans. That might
> >be what you would do in such a case, but not necessarily what I would
> >do, or others I know. So just what do you base your assessment on?
>
> On observation.
Of how many?
>
> Now back on point. A politician who speaks of his decision as a difficult
> one, which emotionally touched him, does this not just for fun.
> Particularly: He thereby declares implicitely, but quite well distinctly,
> *THAT* he made the decision.
Of course. That he made a decision one way or another is obvious. Not
acting on something is a decision just as acting on it is.
>
> >
> >>
> >> To your judgement about politicians; how exactly you'd wish them to be?
> >> Should they represent the average opinion of their voters, or should they
> >> show any personality in their decisions?
> >>
> >
> >Here, we ask our politicians to serve the voters rather than the public
> >to serve the politicians.
> >
>
> Aside from that I regard less than 25% pro-Bush for too little to justify
> the statement above, you sidestepped the question. You firstly expressed
> dismay in view of the politicians' attitude to make popular - or even
> populist - decisions, and now, secondly, you write they should "serve the
> voters".
They SHOULD serve the voters. Of course, your definition of that is
different form mine. I believe, except in the case where doing so is a
clear violation of law, that a politician should serve the interests of
the majority of the voters.
> Again: What is your model of a politician, how should (s)he be? A simple
> amplifyer of vox populi, or should personality play a part, too?
>
> Jürgen
Being more or less human, politicians will always inject a bit of their
personal beliefs into their job. I believe, however, that it is a
politician's main job to reflect the views of the majority of his public
so long as those views do not infringe upon the rights of others or are
in some other way unlawful.
Of course, there is another reality. If a politician wants to be
reelected, he best at least present the illusion that he serves the
majority opinion of those who vote for him.
Teflon
Jürgen
Richard J schrieb in Nachricht <3DE25295...@hotmail.com>...
Then he MADE a decision - that's all what was to show, since you claimed
Bushes non-involvement in executions.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> To your judgement about politicians; how exactly you'd wish them to
be?
>> >> Should they represent the average opinion of their voters, or should
they
>> >> show any personality in their decisions?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Here, we ask our politicians to serve the voters rather than the public
>> >to serve the politicians.
>> >
>>
>> Aside from that I regard less than 25% pro-Bush for too little to justify
>> the statement above, you sidestepped the question. You firstly expressed
>> dismay in view of the politicians' attitude to make popular - or even
>> populist - decisions, and now, secondly, you write they should "serve the
>> voters".
>
>They SHOULD serve the voters. Of course, your definition of that is
>different form mine. I believe, except in the case where doing so is a
>clear violation of law, that a politician should serve the interests of
>the majority of the voters.
>
>> Again: What is your model of a politician, how should (s)he be? A simple
>> amplifyer of vox populi, or should personality play a part, too?
>>
>
>Being more or less human, politicians will always inject a bit of their
>personal beliefs into their job. I believe, however, that it is a
>politician's main job to reflect the views of the majority of his public
>so long as those views do not infringe upon the rights of others or are
>in some other way unlawful.
>
>Of course, there is another reality. If a politician wants to be
>reelected, he best at least present the illusion that he serves the
>majority opinion of those who vote for him.
>
I asked because I see huge a flaw in democracy itself underlying to the
attitude of politicians- notably without being able to propose better an
alternative than elections. It is, as ever, much easier to criticize than to
paint the picture of a model-politician.
Jürgen
Richard J
He made a decision to allow the system to work as it was without his
getting involved. That is a long way from what you suggest. The
governor need do nothing for the system to work. Only if he wants to
get personally involved in a permanent change to a capital crime
sentence may he ask the Board of Paroles and Pardons to recommend a
course of action to him. The governor might, if he wishes (and no other
governor before him has done so), grant a ONE TIME temporary reprieve.
Bush has done that on occasion to allow an assertion by a prisoner to be
proven or disproved.
How many model politicians do you know of, Jürgen. No.......let me
guess............ The present chancellor of Germany, right?
Teflon
Jürgen
Richard J schrieb in Nachricht <3DE271DD...@hotmail.com>...
>> >>
>> >> Now back on point. A politician who speaks of his decision as a
difficult
>> >> one, which emotionally touched him, does this not just for fun.
>> >> Particularly: He thereby declares implicitely, but quite well
distinctly,
>> >> *THAT* he made the decision.
>> >
>> >Of course. That he made a decision one way or another is obvious. Not
>> >acting on something is a decision just as acting on it is.
>> >
>>
>> Then he MADE a decision - that's all what was to show, since you claimed
>> Bushes non-involvement in executions.
>
>He made a decision to allow the system to work as it was without his
>getting involved. That is a long way from what you suggest. The
>governor need do nothing for the system to work. Only if he wants to
>get personally involved in a permanent change to a capital crime
>sentence may he ask the Board of Paroles and Pardons to recommend a
>course of action to him. The governor might, if he wishes (and no other
>governor before him has done so), grant a ONE TIME temporary reprieve.
>Bush has done that on occasion to allow an assertion by a prisoner to be
>proven or disproved.
>
Well, I think we already discussed this complex - and I do not think that
we'll come to any agreement.
>> >Being more or less human, politicians will always inject a bit of their
>> >personal beliefs into their job. I believe, however, that it is a
>> >politician's main job to reflect the views of the majority of his public
>> >so long as those views do not infringe upon the rights of others or are
>> >in some other way unlawful.
>> >
>> >Of course, there is another reality. If a politician wants to be
>> >reelected, he best at least present the illusion that he serves the
>> >majority opinion of those who vote for him.
>> >
>>
>> I asked because I see huge a flaw in democracy itself underlying to the
>> attitude of politicians- notably without being able to propose better an
>> alternative than elections. It is, as ever, much easier to criticize than
to
>> paint the picture of a model-politician.
>>
>
>How many model politicians do you know of, Jürgen. No.......let me
>guess............ The present chancellor of Germany, right?
>
You miss the point - deliberately, so I believe.
Jürgen
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
I have seen the name "Pat O'Dagnop" used in his posts. It looks wrong
so he's probably taking the piss but there's the slightest chance that
it's his real name.
Certainly the same poster, though. I do like his current handle,
though. I don't think that he's pretending to be you. If imitation is
the sincerest form of flattery then satire must come a close second,
IMHO.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> You obviously know nothing of morality, so how about you define Evil
> for me?
Objectively, there is no such _thing_ as "evil". We can say
"destructive" or "dangerous" in an objective fashion but never "evil".
When I use the word "evil", I mean it subjectively. That is, in terms
of my own, internalised moral code and not in any kind of absolute way.
What I regard as "evil" the next person may well regard as "moral" and
"good".
> No, i just understand that my views on the death penalty are based on
> the logical expression of my conscience,
i.e. it's subjective. Unless you're one of those God-botherers from
Banana bending country you _have_ to admit _that_.
> and the realization that most
> killers have been abused, adopted and rejected...not the criteria for
> producing upstanding citizens.
That is an argument for improving the lot of those who are currently
abused, adopted and rejected rather than punishing murderers less
harshly. Adopted? Weird. My ex is adopted and seems not to show any
homicidal tendencies whatsoever.
> These ridiculous comments mark you as demented.
That's the standard "throw a little bit of abuse in amongst your
arguments" technique for which PV is famed. Most of us don't mind any
more and just take it as being part of his posting style. I strongly
suggest that you do likewise if you have any interest in sticking around.
> Make sure you define evil, i know YOU have a substantive definition.
There is no "good" or "evil" except in your own mind. If you want to
bring God into this then believe me when I tell you that I'll (in terms
of a debate) tear you a new arsehole.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:arthss$tpd$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> >
> >"David Wilson" <dav...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >> >
> >> > > Powell is the genius who considers starving Africans irrational for
> >> > > stealing to survive.
> >> >
> >> > He has the right to express that opinion. Now do you wish to put it in
> >> > context or continue the one liners?
> >>
> >> LOL, you moral fraud, social darwinist par excellence.
> >> You obviously aren't offended by the evil comment of Powell, as your
> >> modus operandi of exploiting the weak and vunerable is identicle to
> >> that of your garden variety sociopath.
> >>
> >
> >David...David...David.. are you presuming yourself to be God?
> >Have you somehow decided for the rest of our species what
> >is 'moral' and what is 'evil'? For example, I personally (I speak
> >for no one other than myself), see YOUR comments as rather
> >immoral and evil. Not just here, but ALL of them. I see you as
> >presuming you have a Messiah-like ability to claim that YOUR
> >views MUST be those of the rest of our species. It's a common
> >affliction among some abolitionists...
>
> Well, to get this one straight: Those who ride the high horse to decide over
> life and death are who show God-like attitudes.
As you are suffering from the same syndrome as David... how
exactly would you know, being blinded by your own belief that
you are God? You can also be sure that murderers ALWAYS
presume they are God. And preventing them from further
murders is hardly 'riding the high horse,' while presuming it
is 'right' to permit them to do so can be viewed by some as
assuming some God-like proportions.
Let's put this in the proper perspective. It is God-like to
presume that society can have no say in what to do with
murderers. It presumes to place yourself higher than
the members of such a society. I have no problem with
societies that decide to abolish the DP. I feel they have
every right to do so. I do have a problem with those who
assume they are God and can TELL my society how to
function, as you constantly do. Reasonable commentary
is recognized as acceptable. I see your commentary as
presuming you are God. It is God-like to presume that
ALL murderers must be 'saved' and 'pitied,' and 'coddled'
for the rest of their natural life, when a society has chosen
to do otherwise. It is not God-like to presume that society
has choices. It is not God-like to recognize that some
murderers are viewed by some societies as totally irredeemable,
incapable of being rehabilitated. It is not God-like to
presume that caging a human, as we cage an animal,
for the remainder of their natural life is inhuman... since
we now presume we must treat them as something other
than humans. It is not God-like to presume that MY
society can execute the murderers that it decides NEED
to be executed.
> Surely not those who would
> voluntarily restrict legal power to penalties which do respect to an
> incarcerated's physical integrity.
ho ho ho.. I see you haven't lost your edge for irony. Or your
inability to provide a non-emotional, clear comment.
PV
>
> Jürgen
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:s9utra...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:56:53 GMT, dans l'article <9chE9.282521$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > *giggle*
>
> >> You bastard ! Those were innocent PEOPLE (sic) who died in those towers !
> >> How dare you SPIT (sic) on their MEMORY (sic) ??!!
>
> > Even desi, the 'intellectual' fruitcake, has no idea what he is
> > trying to say here. I've never seen Mr. D., ever *giggle* in
> > respect to 9-11
>
>
Nah... don't use that tired, old 'excuse' again. You're simply being
desi... unaware that those were 'actually' people, thus you needed to
put a (sic) after the word, implying that they actually weren't 'people'
but markers you move about in your macabre little play of presuming
that 'victims' have no meaning. A (sic) in which you try to call attention
to what you presume is an erroneous utterance on your part, in case
others assume that they were ACTUALLY real 'people.'
> { snip remainder of LDB thumping the desk ... }
>
Once again... I simply report what you post, desi. I certainly do not
*giggle* about 9-11. And I certainly do not put a (sic) after those
innocent people murdered in the WTC attack. Both of those I see
as attempts to make a mockery of that attack. And your typically
inane attempt to wiggle out of that attempt at mockery was made
even more clear with your true-to-form horseshit of trying to turn
your disgusting comment into what you now call 'irony.' A concept
you are totally unfamiliar with. And it becomes even more absurd
by you providing simply another example of how you *giggle* about
that tragedy by claiming they were not 'real people.' Adding a
(sic) after people, as you do after 9-11.
> > [1] url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bSKx9.126091%24r7.2296002%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
>
> LOL ... good to see you copying some more posting aspects of your 'hero',
> LDB ! Even the 'url:' ... good lad.
Whatever works for you, desi. The post I offered works for me, and
showed that you haven't a clue as to some limits placed on 'freedom
of expression' in France.
A Planet Visitor
"David Wilson" <dav...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<engE9.281908$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > "David Wilson" <dav...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > David...David...David.. are you presuming yourself to be God?
>
> Sort of, i'm wizzing to the Omega.
>
You wouldn't want to live in a society where the DP is seen as
necessary, would you?
>
> > Have you somehow decided for the rest of our species what
> > is 'moral' and what is 'evil'?
>
> I haven't, i've decide for myself, and i'm expressing that view bozo.
>
by making a rather clumsy claim that 'killing is wrong.' Implying
that it is a FACT that the DP is wrong, which is not expressing
a 'view,' but trying to make your particular view be seen as a
TRUISM... which it obviously cannot be, since _I_ (and many
others) do not feel ALL killing is wrong, thus providing a
counter-example to your 'proof.'
> For example, I personally (I speak
> > for no one other than myself), see YOUR comments as rather
> > immoral and evil.
>
> You obviously know nothing of morality, so how about you define Evil
> for me?
The very fact that you claim that I know nothing of morality, is
simply a symptom of your AbTAG syndrome (Abolitionists
believing They Are God). Those who presume they can DEFINE
morality for all other humans, presume they are God. Both
morality and Evil as perceived in the effect of particular acts,
depend upon how various humans see those two emotions in a
subjective view. Thus, a particular act BEING evil is subject to
such a subjective view. Some may see morality and evil in
a particular act, others may not. In fact, some may see a
degree of evil in both choices, yet only have those two choices
available, and thus must chose that with the 'lesser evil' in
their particular view of evil. The objective definition of morality
is 'right' from 'wrong,' but that very definition shows that it is
dependent upon how one views a PARTICULAR act in their
subjective viewpoint. Some may see it as 'right' others as 'wrong.'
The objective meaning of evil is available in any dictionary. This
is not a teaching institution, and you should research the
information for yourself. Since feeding a man a fish... feeds him
for a day --- but teaching him to fish... feeds him for his life. Thus..
see http://dictionary.reference.com/
> Not just here, but ALL of them. I see you as
> > presuming you have a Messiah-like ability to claim that YOUR
> > views MUST be those of the rest of our species.
>
> No, i just understand that my views on the death penalty are based on
> the logical expression of my conscience, and the realization that most
> killers have been abused, adopted and rejected...not the criteria for
> producing upstanding citizens.
>
So, your feeling is we should 'forgive' them for murdering? And
in any case, haven't they killed? Isn't 'killing wrong'? Is
permitting them to kill again 'right'?
> . Not
> > being able to examine your eyes to see if your 'pupils are fixed
> > and dilated,' and a tremor is exhibited in your jaw, it's impossible
> > for me to determine which has been responsible for the onset
> > of your syndrome. Short of a violent act being perpetrated on
> > you personally, or your family, the cure for AbTAG syndrome
> > is not that easy. Often intensive therapy is required, and those
> > meds are important. However, if such a violent act occurs
> > against you or your family, the complete disappearance of all
> > symptoms of your affliction has been called 'nothing short of
> > miraculous' by medical authorities.
>
> These ridiculous comments mark you as demented.
>
No... no..your remark regarding me is simply the manifestation
of another symptom of the syndrome which afflicts you. Quite often,
sufferers will believe 'everyone is against me, thus they all must be crazy,
since I am God.' Trust me on this... your meds need some
adjustment.
> Make sure you define evil, i know YOU have a substantive definition.
>
Actually, only you, in your illness believing you are God would try to
define each act of every human as to it being 'evil' or 'not evil.' I
presume only what I find in my own viewpoint. And given two
choices, the fact that both can possibly contain some degree of 'evil,'
demands that I chose that which 'I see' has the lesser evil. And I
believe doing so constitutes a subjective choice of 'right.' I believe
the DP fits that condition. The fact is, IMHO, a moral choice (which
would be the 'right' choice in subjective terms), can well contain a
degree of evil, and still be 'right' morally in the subjective viewpoint.
Simply because the contrary view contains what is subjectively
seen as 'a greater degree of evil.' Thus your 'other argument,' that
'all killing is wrong,' is wrong, in my view. All killing of humans
certainly results in the death of a human, but 'not killing' can often
result in the death of a greater number of humans.
> Love and kisses.
>
What... no benediction?
PV
> David Wilson.
>
Richard J
up if he's stupid enough to get into debate with Q.Z.D.
Be easy on him old boy. He's still a relative virgin and if you pound
too hard, he'll go running back under his bridge with a lifetime supply
of suppositories to ease the pain and never bee seen again!
Remember, if you wish to play with them for a while, you don't punk them
too hard at first!
Teflon
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Alert, alert, alert! I feel a number one humiliation of a troll coming
> up if he's stupid enough to get into debate with Q.Z.D.
Flattery will get you nowhere, Richard.
I'm even going to give him a go without treating him like a football.
Moral philosophy is more PV's bag but I'll give it a go and I honestly
believe that I'm no slouch.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:39:40 +0000
>
>le Mon, 25 Nov 2002 03:56:53 GMT, dans l'article
><9chE9.282521$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
><abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > *giggle*
>
>>> You bastard ! Those were innocent PEOPLE (sic) who died in those towers !
>>> How dare you SPIT (sic) on their MEMORY (sic) ??!!
>
>> Even desi, the 'intellectual' fruitcake, has no idea what he is
>> trying to say here. I've never seen Mr. D., ever *giggle* in
>> respect to 9-11
>
>ROTFLMAO ! Remind us all again of how you 'understand' irony, LDB ...
>
>{ snip remainder of LDB thumping the desk ... }
>
>> [1]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bSKx9.126091%24r7.2296002%40twis
ter.tampabay.rr.com&oe=UTF-8
>
>LOL ... good to see you copying some more posting aspects of your 'hero',
>LDB ! Even the 'url:' ... good lad.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:39:40 +0000
>Lines: 27
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <s9utra...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3de02999$1...@post.usenet.com>
><jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><6vqrra...@lievre.voute.net>
><9chE9.282521$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038253349 22985970 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: TROLL ABUSE WARNING! (was Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER)
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:36:56 +0000
>
>le Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:32:57 GMT, dans l'article
><jonathan-D3FDA8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
>>> Alert, alert, alert! I feel a number one humiliation of a troll coming
>>> up if he's stupid enough to get into debate with Q.Z.D.
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Moral philosophy is more PV's bag
>
>Or would be, if he could spell it.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: TROLL ABUSE WARNING! (was Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER)
>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:36:56 +0000
>Lines: 18
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <8nfura...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><3DDFA829...@hotmail.com>
><a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><3DE0F24A...@hotmail.com>
><a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><engE9.281908$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>
><jonathan-B417D1...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><3DE2B33C...@hotmail.com>
><jonathan-D3FDA8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038271354 23401214 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:48:59 +0000
>
>le 25 Nov 2002 06:58:48 -0800, dans l'article
><a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>, David Wilson
><dav...@iprimus.com.au> a dit ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>> For example, I personally (I speak
>>> for no one other than myself), see YOUR comments as rather
>>> immoral and evil.
>
>> You obviously know nothing of morality, so how about you define Evil
>> for me?
>
>LDB knows his own twisted 'morality'. The morality that says it is better
>to execute a hundred innocent people, than to allow one guilty person to
>go free.
>
>Did I say 'twisted' ? Make that 'disgusting'.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cide
ra!nntp.theplanet.net!inewsm1.nntp.theplanet.net!peer1.news.newnet.co.uk!f
u-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:48:59 +0000
>Lines: 22
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <bqntra...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><3DDFA829...@hotmail.com>
><a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><3DE0F24A...@hotmail.com>
><a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><engE9.281908$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038246758 22753944 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:19:10 +0000
>
>le Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:07:12 GMT, dans l'article <A2yE9.213027$fa.4610127=
>@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...=
>=20
>
>>> >> You bastard ! Those were innocent PEOPLE (sic) who died in those t=
>owers !
>>> >> How dare you SPIT (sic) on their MEMORY (sic) ??!!
>
>>> > Even desi, the 'intellectual' fruitcake, has no idea what he is
>>> > trying to say here. I've never seen Mr. D., ever *giggle* in
>>> > respect to 9-11
>
>>> ROTFLMAO ! Remind us all again of how you 'understand' irony, LDB ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>I hereby invoke gimmick n=B0 147. You are thus prevented from answering =
>this
>post, as to do so would result in automatic 'activation' of gimmick n=B0
>147[b]. I shall then dance around in a circle, clapping my hands like a
>demented seal, and claim that I have 'won', because you mis-spelled
>'surprise' five years ago.
>
>--=20
>Desmond Coughlan=20=20=20=20=20
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!fr.clara.net!heighliner.f
r.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin
.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER
>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:19:10 +0000
>Lines: 28
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <uleura...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3de02999$1...@post.usenet.com>
><jonathan-534DA7...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><6vqrra...@lievre.voute.net>
><9chE9.282521$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><s9utra...@lievre.voute.net>
><A2yE9.213027$fa.46...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038270154 22894904 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
David Wilson
> Well, to get this one straight: Those who ride the high horse to decide over
> life and death are who show God-like attitudes. Surely not those who would
> voluntarily restrict legal power to penalties which do respect to an
> incarcerated's physical integrity.
>
> Jürgen
Good point Jurgen, if you had to choose who was the evil doer, would
you choose the one who wanted more "UNECESSARY" killing, or the one
who wanted a true life sentence imposed, this imposition achieves the
same outcome as the DP, without adding to the Kill count.
Sociopaths particularly, are usually adopted, abused and often
systematically tortured for as long as 12 yrs.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> >
> > Well, to get this one straight: Those who ride the high horse to decide
> > over
> > life and death are who show God-like attitudes. Surely not those who
> > would
> > voluntarily restrict legal power to penalties which do respect to an
> > incarcerated's physical integrity.
> Good point Jurgen, if you had to choose who was the evil doer, would
> you choose the one who wanted more "UNECESSARY" killing, or the one
> who wanted a true life sentence imposed, this imposition achieves the
> same outcome as the DP, without adding to the Kill count.
If you're looking at things in from a purely utilitarian standpoint,
it's a hard one to call as to whether a true life sentence will lead to
less innocent deaths (or even less deaths at all). I tend to believe
that it can be engineered that way but there are some regular posters
here who have put forward _very_ strong arguments to the contrary.
> Sociopaths particularly, are usually adopted, abused and often
> systematically tortured for as long as 12 yrs.
Sociopaths exist in all walks of life. Very few of them will actually
kill other people. Most of them will never be convicted of a crime.
Many are extremely bright, successful individuals, often occupying
exalted positions in industry and government.
On the other hand, even the worst murderers are seldom sociopaths.
Those sentenced to death in many states of the USA have often shot one
or more people during the commission of some "lesser" crime.
dirtdog
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
<snipped salad tossing from Teflon>
>Moral philosophy is more PV's bag
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh dear! Complimented by Teflon on your mental prowess and there you
go and _heinously_ misspell 'lying' during your post-coital
'cigarette'.
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:8nfura...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:32:57 GMT, dans l'article <jonathan-D3FDA8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z.
Diablo <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
> >> Alert, alert, alert! I feel a number one humiliation of a troll coming
> >> up if he's stupid enough to get into debate with Q.Z.D.
>
>
> > Moral philosophy is more PV's bag
>
>
And there you have encapsulated the fundamental difference between us,
desi. You would claim victory if I misspelled it, even while you not having
the slightest intellectual idea what either term actually is. It's why
you are an idiot savant as a pedant.... and simply an idiot in all
other aspects.
PV
> { snip }
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dirtdogDONKOOLRI...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
Cunt. Everyone's looking at me strangely now that my glass of water is
now mostly dripping out of my nose.
Cerberus
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DE2B33C...@hotmail.com...
> Alert, alert, alert! I feel a number one humiliation of a troll coming
> up if he's stupid enough to get into debate with Q.Z.D.
>
> Be easy on him old boy. He's still a relative virgin and if you pound
> too hard, he'll go running back under his bridge with a lifetime supply
> of suppositories to ease the pain and never bee seen again!
>
> Remember, if you wish to play with them for a while, you don't punk them
> too hard at first!
Is this a simple seduction or can we shunt a few carriages around and form a
train?
>
>
> Teflon
>
>
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> >
{snip Mr Q's subtle manoeuvring and setting up ready for the suppository
positioning}
WooF w00f WooF
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Cerberus
"Incubus" <inc...@river.styx> wrote in message
news:wxnE9.1459$IH.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
in
> message news:jonathan-74C4B1...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <3DE00D54...@city.net>, Mar...@city.net wrote:
> >
> Your post was none responsive and time wasting Mr.Q but very funny. :-)
There you go Mr Q........The incubus seal of approval. Poor bastard.
Richard J
Hey, I had my go at him first. He's loosened up for you guys <so to
speak>.
Teflon
David Wilson
> up if he's stupid enough to get into debate with Q.Z.D.
RICHARD, that you made the effort to draw me into a "humiliation"
session with QZ, in a Death penalty forum, clearly marks you as
doubtful, and likely evil, although that is difficult to determine
over the net.
> > Objectively, there is no such _thing_ as "evil".
Don't go getting hung up on empirical philosophy concepts champ.
We can say
> > "destructive" or "dangerous" in an objective fashion but never "evil".
Then on the assumption that most people are decent, we should define
what constitutes destructive and dangerous, enabling us to identify an
evil doer.
Your assertion that i claim evil to be objective, as is the
measurement of the metre, is an outright lie, a fabrication made by
some quasi-intellectual who fancies himself as having something
meaninful to say.
Please RETRACT YOUR FABRICATION so as you may restore what little
moral credibility you have amongst your acolytes, as you have been
offered up as the giant killer....LOLOLOLOL.
> > When I use the word "evil", I mean it subjectively. That is, in terms
> > of my own, internalised moral code and not in any kind of absolute way.
> > What I regard as "evil" the next person may well regard as "moral" and
> > "good".
DER KEN, the evil don't consciously see themselves as such. And how
about that retraction huh?
Here's M Scott Peck's definition
thus evil can be defined as
" the exercise of political power---that is, the imposition of ones
will upon others by overt or covert coercion---in order to avoid
spiritual growth.
> >
> > > No, i just understand that my views on the death penalty are based on
> > > the logical expression of my conscience,
> >
> > i.e. it's subjective. Unless you're one of those God-botherers from
> > Banana bending country you _have_ to admit _that_.
That it is subjective is a platitude, as such my views on the DP are
based on the logical expression of "MY" conscience...got it yet champ.
Please note i include logical expression, and thus it will be the
exposure of irrationality that highlights anothers view as worthless,
not the mere expression of opinion....got it chump?
> > That is an argument for improving the lot of those who are currently
> > abused, adopted and rejected rather than punishing murderers less
> > harshly.
If you accept that reasoning and don't rectify that base casues, how
can you execute in good conscience?
Adopted? Weird. My ex is adopted and seems not to show any
> > homicidal tendencies whatsoever.
SO what, i've never said that adoption alone accounts for homicidal
tendencies, you've just assumed incorrectly once more....and perhaps
your biased anecdotes should be left at home huh?
> >
> > . I strongly
> > suggest that you do likewise if you have any interest in sticking around.
Should i stick around, it will be assertive know nothing fools like
you who get a regular ass whooping.
> >
> > > Make sure you define evil, i know YOU have a substantive definition.
> >
> > There is no "good" or "evil" except in your own mind. If you want to
> > bring God into this then believe me when I tell you that I'll (in terms
> > of a debate) tear you a new arsehole.
LOLOLOLOLOL, imbecile, you are probably 23yrs old max, and expose
yourself as an habitual idiot who considers himself knowledgable by
recounting biased anecdotes which he deludes himself into thinking
buffer his shoddy and persistent shallow thinking.
If there is no good or evil except in my own mind then you implicitly
state the obvious that it is subjective and it is necessary for those
of us who consider themselves good to define dangerous and
destructive, to produce a checklist which will identify
evil....similar to the Psychopathy checklist.
Don't bother responding, i don't want to review your grade school
retorts.
David "Objective Truth" Wilson.
Cerberus
Yair Richard, you big nasty, YOUNG troll you. Just be careful what your
'acolytes' think of you. 23 Lol..................around the left knee cap
maybe.
I know you have him plonked, but you just had to see this
David Wilson
> In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
>
> If you're looking at things in from a purely utilitarian standpoint,
> it's a hard one to call as to whether a true life sentence will lead to
> less innocent deaths (or even less deaths at all).
I'm not making any suggestions about deterence, i'm saying
that...actually forget it, you've just exposed yourself as a
superficial fool.
>
> Sociopaths exist in all walks of life. Very few of them will actually
> kill other people.
But by definition, everyone of them must engage in "psychological
killing" and MEET the criteria of DSM IV.
>
> On the other hand, even the worst murderers are seldom sociopaths.
> Those sentenced to death in many states of the USA have often shot one
> or more people during the commission of some "lesser" crime.
LOLOLOLOL....you complete twit, a person in the process of a crime{one
criteria of DSM IV}, who shoots his way out of a minor crime{ another
condition of DSM IV}, and you don't consider that person would likely
be a sociopath....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
You're like 18-22 right?
>
Richard J
LOL! This idiot is so stupid he cannot even figure out who is posting
what!
Teflon
Jürgen
>murders....
Reminder: You are killing all over the time people who can barely be
considered an aggravated continuing threat in comparizon to not
death-sentenced offenders. <cases sufficiently discussed>
....is hardly 'riding the high horse,' while presuming it
>is 'right' to permit them to do so can be viewed by some as
>assuming some God-like proportions.
This statement does insinuate again that abolition of the death penalty
would equate a permission to murder - totally unreasonable in the face of
the standard-penalty for murder in the United States Of America, which is:
Imprisonment.
>
>Let's put this in the proper perspective. It is God-like to
>presume that society can have no say in what to do with
>murderers.
Nobody does so - you can read my critics or you can leave it, Sir. So your
society is in no way abrogated any right by my posts. But should you and
your society read my argument then you'll have to deal with it.
I regard my critics not God-like: I in contrary regard it reckless and
indifferent to watch a society acting against elementar rules of justice
without addressing the issue - may it suit Your Lordship or not.
It presumes to place yourself higher than
>the members of such a society. I have no problem with
>societies that decide to abolish the DP. I feel they have
>every right to do so. I do have a problem with those who
>assume they are God and can TELL my society how to
>function, as you constantly do. Reasonable commentary
>is recognized as acceptable. I see your commentary as
>presuming you are God. It is God-like to presume that
>ALL murderers must be 'saved' and 'pitied,' and 'coddled'
>for the rest of their natural life, when a society has chosen
>to do otherwise.
No, no, Sir. It is God-like to claim a capability of 12 laypersons to make a
long-term prediction about an offender's mental development to the degree to
attest a 'continuing threat' even after more than a decade in prison, and it
is God-like to insist on executions of prisoners who proved to live
non-violent lives. It is God-like to step into the limelight via executing
humans, and it is God-like to state into the camera a total desinterest in
redemption and remorse of a death row inmate in the context of a possible
act of mercy.
It is not God-like to presume that society
>has choices. It is not God-like to recognize that some
>murderers are viewed by some societies as totally irredeemable,
>incapable of being rehabilitated.
An examination of the selective criteria provided by the
death-penalty-statutes shows that an incapability of being rehabilitated is
no condition for a death sentence. The practice, i.e. the jurisdiction is
even much, much worse. <cases sufficiently discussed>
It is not God-like to
>presume that caging a human, as we cage an animal,
>for the remainder of their natural life is inhuman... since
>we now presume we must treat them as something other
>than humans. It is not God-like to presume that MY
>society can execute the murderers that it decides NEED
>to be executed.
Of course - any prosecutor or juror can tell to aPV: "I think Christina
Riggs constitutes a continuing threat and should be executed", and you will
switch off any examination and thought of your own and exclamate
"Yessir!!" - this is the tenor of your posts, in general as well as right
here.
This way of argumentation is not acceptable.
>
>> Surely not those who would
>> voluntarily restrict legal power to penalties which do respect to an
>> incarcerated's physical integrity.
>
>ho ho ho.. I see you haven't lost your edge for irony. Or your
>inability to provide a non-emotional, clear comment.
>
I really wonder where you see any emotion in the phrase above. 'The death
penalty violates the physical integrity of a prisoner' - do you disagree
with this, or is this statement emotional? If yes or yes - then why?
J.
dirtdog
wrote:
>Cerberus wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> Yair Richard, you big nasty, YOUNG troll you. Just be careful what your
>> 'acolytes' think of you. 23 Lol..................around the left knee cap
>> maybe.
>>
>> I know you have him plonked, but you just had to see this
>>
>> WooF w00f WooF
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
>> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
>
>LOL! This idiot is so stupid he cannot even figure out who is posting
>what!
>
>Teflon
Teflon, that's no way to talk about 'Cerberus'. He was trying to be
nice to you.
w00f
Richard J
Dirt, I'm beginning to think that you have the right idea with your
style of posting.
Teflon
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> in message news:<jonathan-825E67...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> >
> > If you're looking at things in from a purely utilitarian standpoint,
> > it's a hard one to call as to whether a true life sentence will lead to
> > less innocent deaths (or even less deaths at all).
>
> I'm not making any suggestions about deterence,
Nor am I. It is a simple fact that a dead murderer cannot kill again.
It is more or less impossible. Now, in a well-run system, it is
debatable whether those murderers who might otherwise reoffend would
have killed more innocents than would be executed in error is a point
worth looking into.
> i'm saying
> that...actually forget it, you've just exposed yourself as a
> superficial fool.
It seems that you, Davey, are the superficial fool - you habitually
state opinion as fact, you make statements without providing supporting
arguments and you refuse to acknowledge the other side of the debate.
Rather silly of you.
> > Sociopaths exist in all walks of life. Very few of them will actually
> > kill other people.
> But by definition, everyone of them must engage in "psychological
> killing" and MEET the criteria of DSM IV.
DSM IV does not seem to deal with "sociopathy", per se. Perhaps you'd
best consult a dictionary to find out what a sociopath _is_ before
running off at the mouth.
> > On the other hand, even the worst murderers are seldom sociopaths.
> > Those sentenced to death in many states of the USA have often shot one
> > or more people during the commission of some "lesser" crime.
>
> LOLOLOLOL....you complete twit, a person in the process of a crime{one
> criteria of DSM IV}, who shoots his way out of a minor crime{ another
> condition of DSM IV}, and you don't consider that person would likely
> be a sociopath....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
By the definition of "sociopath", many of these people are not
sociopaths. I am aware that a man of your tender years feels the need
to pigeonhole things into convenient boxes with labels such as "good",
"evil", "right", "wrong", "sane", "sociopathic" but the world just don't
work like that. Your beloved DSM IV appears to deal with mental
illnesses. Sociopathy is not a mental illness and is probably never
going to be regarded as one.
> You're like 18-22 right?
I'm considerably older and I would guess, wiser, than you.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:as09t0$gk9$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
executing those who we could hardly be called 'moral' if
we expected to keep them alive until the end of their natural
life. IMHO.
> ....is hardly 'riding the high horse,' while presuming it
> >is 'right' to permit them to do so can be viewed by some as
> >assuming some God-like proportions.
>
> This statement does insinuate again that abolition of the death penalty
> would equate a permission to murder - totally unreasonable in the face of
> the standard-penalty for murder in the United States Of America, which is:
> Imprisonment.
>
Let me put this as plainly as possible. I believe that a State
which presumes that NO murderer is deserved of the DP,
has somehow diminished the actual crime of murder itself.
Now this is my personal, unshakable opinion. If the homicide
rate in the U.S. approached that of some of the states in
Europe, I would have no trouble accepting that my society
could also diminish its perception of the crime of murder.
Because the weight of ALL those murders would be lessened.
I would then be less opposed to abolition. Although I simply
cannot believe it makes sense to expect that NO act of
murder 'deserves' the DP, I might be persuaded because
of the fewer number in that group that I feel really NEED to
be executed. I have never found the DP more than a
'necessary evil' because of the elevated level of murder in
the U.S., in the final analysis, IMHO. Given the present
level, the idea of insisting that ALL murderers be kept alive
until their natural demise is antithetic to my personal
morality. Keeping alive a few of those that I consider necessary
to execute, I could morally live with myself. But the number
I see today in the U.S., could NEVER convince me that
abolition in the U.S. is a sane, moral option.
Nor is there any doubt in my mind that as a 'body' of ALL
abolitionists (not any particular abolitionist) they work to diminish
the crime of murder with that same perception that no murderer
is deserved of the DP. And specifically, I cannot help but
say that I find your arguments in respect to abolition operate
to diminish the crime of murder. The fact that the 'standard'
penalty for murder is imprisonment is totally immaterial to
any argument in respect to the DP. If anything, IMHO, it
operates to justify that penalty, since I would not feel it
justified (or moral) to execute EVERY murderer. Nor would
I be satisfied (morally in my view) expecting ALL of them
to not be executed.
> >
> >Let's put this in the proper perspective. It is God-like to
> >presume that society can have no say in what to do with
> >murderers.
>
> Nobody does so - you can read my critics or you can leave it, Sir. So your
> society is in no way abrogated any right by my posts. But should you and
> your society read my argument then you'll have to deal with it.
> I regard my critics not God-like: I in contrary regard it reckless and
> indifferent to watch a society acting against elementar rules of justice
> without addressing the issue - may it suit Your Lordship or not.
In your own words I find you presume exactly what I say.
Certainly I 'don't have to deal with it.' Since you obviously
have no power to effect any change, being totally outside of
the decision-making process in the U.S. In fact, it is
possible to totally ignore your arguments, since you have
no impact whatsoever. And this is where I see the perception
of you holding this God-like view of yourself, claiming 'you'll
have to deal with it.' Because it's rather obvious that neither I nor
my society has to 'deal with your voice,' or even the collective
voice of your State. In fact, I simply find you a totally impotent
voice. I don't deny you the right to use your voice... but do
not presume in your august God-like view of yourself that I
'have to deal with it.' I could totally ignore you, and you would
be no less impotent than you already are. I chose to not
ignore you in many cases, but do not presume that I 'have
to deal with it,' because you are God. I do not have to 'deal
with it,' because you are NOT God.
> >It presumes to place yourself higher than
> >the members of such a society. I have no problem with
> >societies that decide to abolish the DP. I feel they have
> >every right to do so. I do have a problem with those who
> >assume they are God and can TELL my society how to
> >function, as you constantly do. Reasonable commentary
> >is recognized as acceptable. I see your commentary as
> >presuming you are God. It is God-like to presume that
> >ALL murderers must be 'saved' and 'pitied,' and 'coddled'
> >for the rest of their natural life, when a society has chosen
> >to do otherwise.
>
> No, no, Sir. It is God-like to claim a capability of 12 laypersons to make a
> long-term prediction about an offender's mental development to the degree to
> attest a 'continuing threat' even after more than a decade in prison, and it
> is God-like to insist on executions of prisoners who proved to live
> non-violent lives. It is God-like to step into the limelight via executing
> humans, and it is God-like to state into the camera a total desinterest in
> redemption and remorse of a death row inmate in the context of a possible
> act of mercy.
>
Nah... it's simply God-like to presume you can even make such
emotional outbursts about another society. Find a soap-box.
> >It is not God-like to presume that society
> >has choices. It is not God-like to recognize that some
> >murderers are viewed by some societies as totally irredeemable,
> >incapable of being rehabilitated.
>
> An examination of the selective criteria provided by the
> death-penalty-statutes shows that an incapability of being rehabilitated is
> no condition for a death sentence. The practice, i.e. the jurisdiction is
> even much, much worse. <cases sufficiently discussed>
>
It is God-like to presume that you can decide which of OUR
DP statutes suit you, and continue your emotional outbursts
when an entire society has no problem with them. I certainly
don't assume any God-like ability to tell you what to do in
respect to YOUR criminal statutes.
>
> >It is not God-like to
> >presume that caging a human, as we cage an animal,
> >for the remainder of their natural life is inhuman... since
> >we now presume we must treat them as something other
> >than humans. It is not God-like to presume that MY
> >society can execute the murderers that it decides NEED
> >to be executed.
>
> Of course - any prosecutor or juror can tell to aPV: "I think Christina
> Riggs constitutes a continuing threat and should be executed", and you will
> switch off any examination and thought of your own and exclamate
> "Yessir!!" - this is the tenor of your posts, in general as well as right
> here.
>
Jesus, Jürgen... can you see yourself? You might as well be
wearing a long, white flowing robe, and blessing the throngs
in your God-like examination of my feelings. Your particular
comment literally reeks of a presumption that you are 'better
than everyone,' which speaks to a God-complex.
> This way of argumentation is not acceptable.
>
Again... God speaks and TELLS me 'what is not acceptable.' Is
that your 11th Commandment? "Thou shalt not argue with
Jürgen."
> >
> >> Surely not those who would
> >> voluntarily restrict legal power to penalties which do respect to an
> >> incarcerated's physical integrity.
> >
> >ho ho ho.. I see you haven't lost your edge for irony. Or your
> >inability to provide a non-emotional, clear comment.
> >
>
> I really wonder where you see any emotion in the phrase above. 'The death
> penalty violates the physical integrity of a prisoner' - do you disagree
> with this, or is this statement emotional? If yes or yes - then why?
>
The reason you 'don't see it,' is that you have become blind to the
fact that ALL your arguments are couched in terms of emotional
outbursts. Like desi, who I did not know drank, until he posted
one time when he was sober -- I will probably never know when you
post without it containing only an emotional outburst, until you
perhaps do so one time.
PV
> J.
David Wilson
>Your beloved DSM IV appears to deal with mental
> illnesses. .
What an ignorant fool you are, although is there another kind.
Meeting the criteria of both Conduct disorder and DSM IV defines
sociopathy you damn Canadian.
For Godsake grow some brains.
David "Full Truth" Wilson.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
.... And preventing them from further
>> >murders....
>>
>> Reminder: You are killing all over the time people who can barely be
>> considered an aggravated continuing threat in comparizon to not
>> death-sentenced offenders. <cases sufficiently discussed>
>>
>They are murderers. While at the same moment we are also
>executing those who we could hardly be called 'moral' if
>we expected to keep them alive until the end of their natural
>life. IMHO.
>
>> ....is hardly 'riding the high horse,' while presuming it
>> >is 'right' to permit them to do so can be viewed by some as
>> >assuming some God-like proportions.
>>
>> This statement does insinuate again that abolition of the death penalty
>> would equate a permission to murder - totally unreasonable in the face of
>> the standard-penalty for murder in the United States Of America, which
is:
>> Imprisonment.
>>
>Let me put this as plainly as possible. I believe that a State
>which presumes that NO murderer is deserved of the DP,
>has somehow diminished the actual crime of murder itself.
You, alongside with all your combattants, have provided absolutely no frame
and limits for the 'deserves'-argument. You and your system allow in view of
this point total subjectivity, and the results do accurately fit in this
observation, since the composition of death rows reflect the pure
subjectivity, as theoretically predictable.
No, no, no. That the standard-penalty for the crime of murder is
imprisonment is a crucial counter-point to your claimed de-valuation of the
crime 'murder' by abolition. You claim exactly that executing a handful of
individuals would serve to uphold the degree of seriosity to which murder is
seen. I note that the execution of a symbolic number of humans merely does
PRETEND that a seriosity, while reality is: 'The penalty for murder is a
prison term'. The death penalty serves the purpose to allow you avenge
angels to think *ALWAYS* in vengeant categories - you simply eradiate and
ignore the real standard.
This I regard for the reason why you refuse to compare crimes and to
evaluate any offenders' culpability: There is no clear distinction
"deserves/deserves not", and in consequence you are incapable to leave the
array of vengeance; the 'deserves' argument, which is in practice 2% or
less, dominates your mind to 98%.
... It is God-like to
>> >presume that society can have no say in what to do with
>> >murderers.
>>
>> Nobody does so - you can read my critics or you can leave it, Sir. So
your
>> society is in no way abrogated any right by my posts. But should you and
>> your society read my argument then you'll have to deal with it.
>> I regard my critics not God-like: I in contrary regard it reckless and
>> indifferent to watch a society acting against elementar rules of justice
>> without addressing the issue - may it suit Your Lordship or not.
>
>In your own words I find you presume exactly what I say.
>Certainly I 'don't have to deal with it.'
Actually, you _DO_NOT_ deal with my arguments.
Since you obviously
>have no power to effect any change, being totally outside of
>the decision-making process in the U.S. In fact, it is
>possible to totally ignore your arguments, since you have
>no impact whatsoever. And this is where I see the perception
>of you holding this God-like view of yourself, claiming 'you'll
>have to deal with it.' Because it's rather obvious that neither I nor
>my society has to 'deal with your voice,' or even the collective
>voice of your State. In fact, I simply find you a totally impotent
>voice.
I give you and others opportunity to argument capital punishment - pro and
con. This is an intellectual discourse, and has nothing to do with any
considerations of might.
I don't deny you the right to use your voice... but do
>not presume in your august God-like view of yourself that I
>'have to deal with it.' I could totally ignore you, and you would
>be no less impotent than you already are. I chose to not
>ignore you in many cases, but do not presume that I 'have
>to deal with it,' because you are God. I do not have to 'deal
>with it,' because you are NOT God.
At the moment you decide to speak out pro DP you have to deal with
counter-arguments, or you are intellectually impotent - and I have not to be
God to serve you a proper argument anti-CP.
>> An examination of the selective criteria provided by the
>> death-penalty-statutes shows that an incapability of being rehabilitated
is
>> no condition for a death sentence. The practice, i.e. the jurisdiction is
>> even much, much worse. <cases sufficiently discussed>
>>
>It is God-like to presume that you can decide which of OUR
>DP statutes suit you, and continue your emotional outbursts
>when an entire society has no problem with them.
Your society has HUGE problems with the death penalty.
It is not God-like to presume that MY
>> >society can execute the murderers that it decides NEED
>> >to be executed.
>>
>> Of course - any prosecutor or juror can tell to aPV: "I think Christina
>> Riggs constitutes a continuing threat and should be executed", and you
will
>> switch off any examination and thought of your own and exclamate
>> "Yessir!!" - this is the tenor of your posts, in general as well as right
>> here.
>>
>Jesus, Jürgen... can you see yourself?
Yes. But you can't.
You might as well be
>wearing a long, white flowing robe, and blessing the throngs
>in your God-like examination of my feelings.
NOPE. I examined your POSTS.
Your particular
>comment literally reeks of a presumption that you are 'better
>than everyone,' which speaks to a God-complex.
What matters is solely your habit to confirm all whatever wears anything
resembling an official seal - as for instant the execution of a Christina
Riggs.
>>
>> I really wonder where you see any emotion in the phrase above. 'The death
>> penalty violates the physical integrity of a prisoner' - do you disagree
>> with this, or is this statement emotional? If yes or yes - then why?
>>
>The reason you 'don't see it,' is that you have become blind to the
>fact that ALL your arguments are couched in terms of emotional
>outbursts.
In other words, you can not tell what exactly were emotional with my
statement.
J.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> in message news:<jonathan-F28620...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> of some "lesser" crime.
>
>
> >Your beloved DSM IV appears to deal with mental
> > illnesses. .
>
> What an ignorant fool you are, although is there another kind.
You're just an idiot, Davey. A self-righteous, pompous little
21-year-old undergraduate wanker who thinks that Resistance is "just
groovy" and swallows their party line whole. Your posts thus far show
you up as the sort of pretentious little tosser who gives the left a
bad, bad, bad name. Now go back to your latte until you've learned how
coffee is really drunk.
> Meeting the criteria of both Conduct disorder and DSM IV defines
> sociopathy you damn Canadian.
You're obviously as thick as pigshit, mate. Read a fucking dictionary.
Look up "sociopath" - you'll find it under "S" - the letter between "R"
and "T", just in case you're wondering. You'll find that DSM IV is not
mentioned anywhere in that definition which, BTW, is accepted by mental
health professionals, who rarely use the word. Hope that's cleared up
your delusions.
I'd advise that you learn to read headers if you're going to attempt to
insult people based on their geographical location.
> For Godsake grow some brains.
> David "Full Truth" Wilson.
You mean David "Pull Cock" Wilson, surely?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Richard J <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<3DE2B33C...@hotmail.com>...
> > Alert, alert, alert! I feel a number one humiliation of a troll coming
> > up if he's stupid enough to get into debate with Q.Z.D.
Well, Richard, I've tried to be nice but this man has indicated that
he's ready to sling some shit around so I'm up for it.
> RICHARD, that you made the effort to draw me into a "humiliation"
> session with QZ, in a Death penalty forum, clearly marks you as
> doubtful, and likely evil, although that is difficult to determine
> over the net.
Christ! Someone give the kid his ritalin!
> > > Objectively, there is no such _thing_ as "evil".
>
> Don't go getting hung up on empirical philosophy concepts champ.
They're "moral philosophy" concepts you fucking moron. You're a
complete tool, Davey, you know that? If you're going to attempt to
"intellectually bully" me then I strongly suggest that you get your
vocabulary right in the first place.
Do you know what "empirical" means, my language-challenged chum? Look
it up in a fucking dictionary.
> We can say
> > > "destructive" or "dangerous" in an objective fashion but never
> > > "evil".
>
> Then on the assumption that most people are decent, we should define
> what constitutes destructive and dangerous, enabling us to identify an
> evil doer.
We can, but that is our subjective (or society's constructed) definition
of evil. There is no _absolute_ good or evil unless you fall back to an
omniscient authority which can hand down such a definition.
> Your assertion that i claim evil to be objective, as is the
> measurement of the metre, is an outright lie, a fabrication made by
> some quasi-intellectual who fancies himself as having something
> meaninful to say.
At what point did I assert that you claim that evil is objective? I
hinted at questioning you as to whether you thought this was the case,
and I quote:
"i.e. it's subjective. Unless you're one of those God-botherers from
Banana bending country you _have_ to admit _that_"
Reference:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.activism.death-penalty+insubj
ect:bush+insubject:the+insubject:texecutioner+author:Mr+author:Q.+author:
Z.+author:Diablo&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=jonathan-B417D1.1004172
6112002%40newsroom.utas.edu.au&rnum=10&filter=0
I have nothing meaningful to say, Davey. I just like taking strutting
little peacocks such as yourself down a few pegs.
> Please RETRACT YOUR FABRICATION so as you may restore what little
> moral credibility you have amongst your acolytes, as you have been
> offered up as the giant killer....LOLOLOLOL.
Fuck off, monkey-boy. To "retract" a "fabrication" I first would have
had to have put forward a fabrication. I have not and so I will not.
> > > When I use the word "evil", I mean it subjectively. That is, in
> > > terms
> > > of my own, internalised moral code and not in any kind of absolute
> > > way.
> > > What I regard as "evil" the next person may well regard as "moral"
> > > and
> > > "good".
> DER KEN, the evil don't consciously see themselves as such. And how
> about that retraction huh?
You really are a thick twat aren't you, Davey? I can't very well issue
my "retraction" (which I am not going to issue because there is nothing
to retract) by telepathy, knowing that you typed your previous paragraph
before you posted it and interjecting in a nick of time.
> Here's M Scott Peck's definition
>
> thus evil can be defined as
> " the exercise of political power---that is, the imposition of ones
> will upon others by overt or covert coercion---in order to avoid
> spiritual growth.
...Which is M. Scott Peck's definition. Is he God, Davey? Does he
somehow hold the _authority_ to decide what is good and what is evil? I
regard killing people as "evil", Johnny Howard as "evil", Dick Cheney as
utterly "evil" but I'm the first to admit that these labels are all the
output of my internalised moral code and are hardly absolutes.
> > > > No, i just understand that my views on the death penalty are based
> > > > on
> > > > the logical expression of my conscience,
> > >
> > > i.e. it's subjective. Unless you're one of those God-botherers from
> > > Banana bending country you _have_ to admit _that_.
> That it is subjective is a platitude,
Bollocks. That it is subjective is the subject of philosophical debate
that has been going on up to the present day, you pissy little
undergraduate.
> as such my views on the DP are
> based on the logical expression of "MY" conscience...got it yet champ.
> Please note i include logical expression, and thus it will be the
> exposure of irrationality that highlights anothers view as worthless,
> not the mere expression of opinion....got it chump?
Nope. I think that the spittle on your monitor obscured to your own
eyes the drivel that you just wrote. Can I have it again in English?
> > > That is an argument for improving the lot of those who are currently
> > > abused, adopted and rejected rather than punishing murderers less
> > > harshly.
>
> If you accept that reasoning and don't rectify that base casues, how
> can you execute in good conscience?
I can't. I'm a principled abolitionist - I believe that we have no
moral right to strap a person down and kill them in cold blood. I feel
that it is "wrong". That's my opinion. That's _my_ moral code.
A pragmatist can quite simply argue that, in some cases, a murderer
presents a sufficiently high risk of recidivism, either in or out of
gaol, that they should be permanently and humanely removed from society
(i.e. executed). That has nothing to do with society's prior failures
with that individual but rather the preservation of innocent life.
> Adopted? Weird. My ex is adopted and seems not to show any
> > > homicidal tendencies whatsoever.
>
> SO what, i've never said that adoption alone accounts for homicidal
> tendencies, you've just assumed incorrectly once more....and perhaps
> your biased anecdotes should be left at home huh?
You implied that adoption was a contributing factor towards homicidal
tendencies. I regard this as weird. You have provided no statistics to
back up your outlandish claim so I see no need to do anything but
ridicule it.
> > > . I strongly
> > > suggest that you do likewise if you have any interest in sticking
> > > around.
>
> Should i stick around, it will be assertive know nothing fools like
> you who get a regular ass whooping.
Given that you have _not_once_ presented any evidence to back up any of
your claims, you dullard, I fear that _you_ are the know-nothing fool
who is going to get a regular "ass whooping" (sic).
> > > > Make sure you define evil, i know YOU have a substantive
> > > > definition.
> > >
> > > There is no "good" or "evil" except in your own mind. If you want to
> > > bring God into this then believe me when I tell you that I'll (in
> > > terms
> > > of a debate) tear you a new arsehole.
[snip Davey's inferiority complex rearing its ugly head and remainder of
his auto-spanking]
Richard J
>
I've been waiting. It took a bit longer than I thought it would for you
to get enough of him, but perhaps you are more forgiving than I.
Well done.
Teflon
Incubus
in message news:<jonathan-F28620...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> of some "lesser" crime.
>
>
> >Your beloved DSM IV appears to deal with mental
> > illnesses. .
>
> What an ignorant fool you are, although is there another kind.
shouldn't tha be. "What an ignorant fool you are, although is there another
kind?"
>
> Meeting the criteria of both Conduct disorder and DSM IV defines
> sociopathy you damn Canadian.
so how would you catagorise bigotry against Canadians?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> I've been waiting. It took a bit longer than I thought it would for you
> to get enough of him, but perhaps you are more forgiving than I.
>
> Well done.
There's rudeness that comes about because your interlocutor is a twat,
there's rudeness that comes about because your interlocutor has been
rude to you but I don't know what I said that set this guy off. Now
it's just a matter of how much fun I can have until he's no longer
interesting.
Cerberus
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
> In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
wrote
> > in message news:<jonathan-F28620...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > > In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> > of some "lesser" crime.
> >
> >
You mean David "Pull Cock" Wilson, surely?
Any relation to Kevin "Bloody", or is he too_ common_ for a man of your
obviously serious intellect?
Heh Heh Heh
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:as2rre$vd2$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
A lot of crap and devoid of substance. Simply hysterical accusations
and emotional outbursts that say absolutely nothing. The point
is that a murderer 'deserves' NOTHING that society is not prepared
to offer him/her. They are entitled to NOTHING that society decides
NOT to provide, simply because they have murdered. They no longer
have any 'fundamental rights,' that society grants to 'ordinary
citizens.' They are no longer 'ordinary citizens,' but are murderers.
If society decides to 'give them' some rights, or 'restore some rights,'
that is fine... but they no longer have the 'right' presumed by free
men to life and liberty. They have VOLUNTARILY abdicated such
rights when they committed murder.
Again, hysteria rules your comment... you always make these claims
as if they represent FACT, and they do not. There is no 'symbolism,'
in the DP. It is a process that every convicted murderer goes through
in those states that provide for the DP, when they commit a capital
murder under the criminal statutes. The fact that only 5% of all
murderers receive the DP, is simply the recognition of how grave such
a penalty is, and cannot in any way be seen as 'symbolic,' except in
your hysterical and emotional ravings. A symbolic DP would presume
no selection process whatsoever, and those executed chosen by random.
Or one murderer per a specific period as some sort of a 'quota.' Or
the execution of all murderers convicted of a capital crime. To receive such
a penalty, a very great number of people must ALL agree on it being
applied. And a great number of conditions must be proven to be met.
That is why it is 5%, and not because it is 'symbolic.'
> This I regard for the reason why you refuse to compare crimes and to
> evaluate any offenders' culpability: There is no clear distinction
> "deserves/deserves not", and in consequence you are incapable to leave the
> array of vengeance; the 'deserves' argument, which is in practice 2% or
> less, dominates your mind to 98%.
>
There is ALWAYS in the background the recognition that ALL
punishment represents vengeance to a degree. Punishment cannot
exist without that recognition. It is exacting society's revenge on
someone who has harmed another member of that society, in order
to maintain 'order and structure' within that society. Otherwise, we
presume that those having been offended have every right to take
'vigilante justice,' or that those having offended can do so without
fear of any retribution or punishment by anyone. Which we
renounce in an orderly society. Society sits in the role of the
one offended and acts as a 'reasoned examiner of the offence
and the punishment if guilty.' It is absurd to 'single out' the DP
and claim no clear distinction of deserves/not deserves, since all
punishments suffer that same limitation -- that the PRECISE
determination of the length of the sentence cannot be determined
objectively. The justice system examines the offender and the
crime and determines subjectively, using the views of the jury
members and the judge, to fix the sentence WITHIN the structure
of maximum/minimum sentencing standards. A sentence within
those standards meets the objectivity placed into the criminal
statutes. Having been found guilty of a capital murder, the
convicted murderer now becomes ELIGIBLE for 'deserving'
execution, and that examination is obviously subjective. The
SCOTUS ruled many years ago, that the 'deserves' aspect
MUST be examined at sentencing, and CANNOT be written
into the criminal statutes as presuming that being found guilty
at trial for a capital offence the convicted WILL meet the criteria
of 'deserves.'
> ... It is God-like to
> >> >presume that society can have no say in what to do with
> >> >murderers.
> >>
> >> Nobody does so - you can read my critics or you can leave it, Sir. So
> your
> >> society is in no way abrogated any right by my posts. But should you and
> >> your society read my argument then you'll have to deal with it.
> >> I regard my critics not God-like: I in contrary regard it reckless and
> >> indifferent to watch a society acting against elementar rules of justice
> >> without addressing the issue - may it suit Your Lordship or not.
> >
> >In your own words I find you presume exactly what I say.
> >Certainly I 'don't have to deal with it.'
>
> Actually, you _DO_NOT_ deal with my arguments.
>
Actually, all 'arguments' you've ever posed here, have been
among the most clumsy ever seen in this group (sorry about
that observation -- but it is hard to avoid saying). Your
'arguments' ALWAYS rely entirely on hypocrisy, pity for
murderers, accusations of brutalization of those who have
murdered, accusations of all parties to the prosecution
being 'evil,' the use of some silly terms you've picked up
somewhere, that you have no real understanding of what
they mean (equity, proportionality, conspiracy, for some
examples - there are so many more), and an underlying hate
for the U.S. in general.
>
> >Since you obviously
> >have no power to effect any change, being totally outside of
> >the decision-making process in the U.S. In fact, it is
> >possible to totally ignore your arguments, since you have
> >no impact whatsoever. And this is where I see the perception
> >of you holding this God-like view of yourself, claiming 'you'll
> >have to deal with it.' Because it's rather obvious that neither I nor
> >my society has to 'deal with your voice,' or even the collective
> >voice of your State. In fact, I simply find you a totally impotent
> >voice.
>
> I give you and others opportunity to argument capital punishment - pro and
> con. This is an intellectual discourse, and has nothing to do with any
> considerations of might.
>
No... you said I have to deal with it. And clearly neither I nor
my society have to 'deal with' ANYTHING you say. I do it
simply to show how hysterical, emotional and non-objective
you are. I think everyone else that posts to your comments
does so for the same reason I do. Because you do not 'argue'
the DP, you only look at this as a soap-box forum to present
non-facts using the methods I've mentioned.
> >I don't deny you the right to use your voice... but do
> >not presume in your august God-like view of yourself that I
> >'have to deal with it.' I could totally ignore you, and you would
> >be no less impotent than you already are. I chose to not
> >ignore you in many cases, but do not presume that I 'have
> >to deal with it,' because you are God. I do not have to 'deal
> >with it,' because you are NOT God.
>
> At the moment you decide to speak out pro DP you have to deal with
> counter-arguments, or you are intellectually impotent - and I have not to be
> God to serve you a proper argument anti-CP.
>
You're completely wrong... and certainly DO presume you
are God, if you believe I have to deal with YOUR 'arguments.'
The fact is no one has to deal with 'counter-arguments' that
rest on the shifting sand of emotion, hysteria, and all the other
irrationalities that I see come from you, that lack any form of
substance or factual input. It is absurd that you would even
contend your 'arguments' contain 'intellectual' content. I have
NEVER observed any 'intellectual' content in your posts.
Not that you might not 'be' an intellectual, but simply that
your skills in English, or lack thereof, prevent that from
becoming apparent if you are. I have no more responsibility
to 'deal with' you in your presentations of such nonsense, than
I do with the idiot that stands on a soap-box in the park and
shouts that 'The World is coming to an end.' We do NOT
have to 'deal with' ignorance. We have only to identify it... I
have done so with your comments. If you presume that I
HAVE to 'deal with it,' it is the same as that raving lunatic
shouting that 'the world is coming to an end,' seeing himself
as God, demanding that I 'deal with it,' and not walk away
shaking my head in pity.
Nor do I actually have to deal with counter-arguments
that come from those who are not part of my society using
the DP. I have to deal with those WITHIN my society doing
so, because they are PART of the entity that forms my society.
> >> An examination of the selective criteria provided by the
> >> death-penalty-statutes shows that an incapability of being rehabilitated
> is
> >> no condition for a death sentence. The practice, i.e. the jurisdiction is
> >> even much, much worse. <cases sufficiently discussed>
> >>
> >It is God-like to presume that you can decide which of OUR
> >DP statutes suit you, and continue your emotional outbursts
> >when an entire society has no problem with them.
>
> Your society has HUGE problems with the death penalty.
>
We have a HUGE problem with violence in our society. The
abolition of the DP will not SOLVE that problem. Thus, the
presumption that we have huge problems with the DP implies,
as you always do, that we should FORGIVE those who murder.
The DP is simply another punishment for a particular crime...
the crime of capital murder. If it is considered appropriate by
the legislatures, representatives of the citizens of that society,
having established criminal statutes which provide for such
penalties. And after a trial, sentencing and due process
determines that penalty to be appropriate. You wish to always
elevate that penalty using those hysterical buzz words. But
caging a human for the rest of their natural life cannot be
presumed to be more 'moral' (IMHO) than a humane execution,
IMHO.
> >> >It is not God-like to presume that MY
> >> >society can execute the murderers that it decides NEED
> >> >to be executed.
> >>
> >> Of course - any prosecutor or juror can tell to aPV: "I think Christina
> >> Riggs constitutes a continuing threat and should be executed", and you
> >> will
> >> switch off any examination and thought of your own and exclamate
> >> "Yessir!!" - this is the tenor of your posts, in general as well as right
> >> here.
> >>
> >Jesus, Jürgen... can you see yourself?
>
> Yes. But you can't.
>
No, actually you cannot... you've become a blithering, hysterical
fruitcake with Christina Riggs, Karla Faye Tucker and the LaGrand
brothers, expecting to show that they -- MURDERERS ALL --
prove that the DP is wrong. Shall I repeat that? MURDERERS
ALL. Since you're so impressed with their names -- let me
give you the NAMES of their VICTIMS --
Riggs -- Justin and Shelby Riggs
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/riggs629.htm
Tucker -- Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/tucker437.htm
LaGrand Brothers -- Kenneth Hartsock
> > You might as well be
> >wearing a long, white flowing robe, and blessing the throngs
> >in your God-like examination of my feelings.
>
> NOPE. I examined your POSTS.
>
And then presumed you are wearing that robe in your comments.
> >Your particular
> >comment literally reeks of a presumption that you are 'better
> >than everyone,' which speaks to a God-complex.
>
> What matters is solely your habit to confirm all whatever wears anything
> resembling an official seal - as for instant the execution of a Christina
> Riggs.
While you would presume that McDuff be permitted to murder again.
> >>
> >> I really wonder where you see any emotion in the phrase above. 'The death
> >> penalty violates the physical integrity of a prisoner' - do you disagree
> >> with this, or is this statement emotional? If yes or yes - then why?
> >>
> >The reason you 'don't see it,' is that you have become blind to the
> >fact that ALL your arguments are couched in terms of emotional
> >outbursts.
>
> In other words, you can not tell what exactly were emotional with my
> statement.
In other words... I have NEVER seen you make a statement that
WAS NOT couched in emotional outbursts. You have NEVER..
EVER... offered any analysis of the DP. EVERY post... EVERY
comment... EVERY sentence... that you place into this group
can ALL be seen as simply different variations of the same
theme.. 'brutalization,' 'we must have pity on murderers,' 'all
the prosecutorial processes in the U.S. are evil,' etc... etc...
etc... If you were ever to post something that was NOT couched
in such terms I would be astounded. And your post here is
simply TYPICAL of ALL your posts.
> J.
>
>
>
David Wilson
>!
>
> > > > Objectively, there is no such _thing_ as "evil".
> >
> > Don't go getting hung up on empirical philosophy concepts champ.
>
> They're "moral philosophy" concepts you fucking moron. You're a
> complete tool, Davey, you know that? If you're going to attempt to
> "intellectually bully" me then I strongly suggest that you get your
> vocabulary right in the first place.
IDIOT....Moral philosophy is aka Ethics, and is a branch of
philosophy....i predicted that you are an imbecile and thus "likely" a
empirical philosopher{that's the stupid kind}....also i don't bully
wimps.
Now, that's all the truth i dish out to such an idiot tonight.
David Wilson
> In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> > in message news:<jonathan-F28620...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > > In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> > of some "lesser" crime.
> >
> >
>
>
> > sociopathy you damn Canadian.
>
>
> > David "Full Truth" Wilson.
>
> You mean David "Pull Cock" Wilson, surely?
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
YOU DUMB IDIOT...I KNOW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW, AND I KNOW YOU TO BE EVIL SCUM.
David Wilson
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
> message news:jonathan-C0F0D4...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> >
> > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
> wrote
> > > in message news:<jonathan-F28620...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > > > In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> > > of some "lesser" crime.
> > >
> > >
> {Davey's arse kicking deleted}
>
> You mean David "Pull Cock" Wilson, surely?
>
> Any relation to Kevin "Bloody", or is he too_ common_ for a man of your
> obviously serious intellect?
>
> Heh Heh Heh
>
I don't listen to such lower class "entertainment".
Now grow up, ease up on the lube and be careful i don't hit you round
the head and upside ya fucken face you lunatic, and obviously depraved
GAY.
Incubus
This may seem like a redundent question on this newsgroup but what has this
got to to do with the death penalty?
Richard J
The devil made me unblock you Dave. Diablo was having waaaaaaaay too
much fun with you, and I enjoy seeing prepubescent smart mouth punks
bitch slapped by a master!
You are at a crossroads at this point. You can either be a serious
poster and start contributing something worthwhile to this news group,
or wind up attempting a conversation with Don Kool as the rest of those
here will either ignore you of continue to use you for entertainment.
Yep, that's right. To those of us who've been here a while, people like
you are entertainment when we get bored. We've discussed the death
penalty and associated issues so long that we know most of both sides of
the argument by heart. When someone comes on the group like you and
immediately starts to hurl insults and make unsupported statements, we
play with you a while and discard you like a broken toy.
Diablo was kind to you. He was really quite gentle as he punked you,
but now he's about to give you a size twelve arse hole. I hope you
enjoy it, for the rest of us are!
Now why don't you try growing up a bit and learn a bit more about those
already here before you start making inaccurate assumptions?
BTW, if you think I am a "social Darwinist" because I think societies
evolve based upon successful survival patterns, you are correct. I
don't think that too bad a thing.
Teflon (Richard Jackson)
Richard J
LOL! Hey Dirtdog! We have another play toy! Be careful with him, he
gets his feelings hurt easily and his bum hole is a bit sore from the
reaming Diablo's given him.
Teflon
Teflon
Incubus
What the hell has it to do with him if you do support Darwin's theories
anyway??
:-)
Richard J
Nothing, except his way of attempting to attack. It isn't very
effective is it?
Teflon
Incubus
None of his posts are very effective or even on topic.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
<16 kB snipped>
>> >> I really wonder where you see any emotion in the phrase above. 'The
death
>> >> penalty violates the physical integrity of a prisoner' - do you
disagree
>> >> with this, or is this statement emotional? If yes or yes - then why?
>> >>
>> >The reason you 'don't see it,' is that you have become blind to the
>> >fact that ALL your arguments are couched in terms of emotional
>> >outbursts.
>>
>> In other words, you can not tell what exactly were emotional with my
>> statement.
>
>In other words... I have NEVER seen you make a statement that
>WAS NOT couched in emotional outbursts. You have NEVER..
>EVER... offered any analysis of the DP.
If you say so.....
EVERY post... EVERY
>comment... EVERY sentence... that you place into this group
>can ALL be seen as simply different variations of the same
>theme.. 'brutalization,' 'we must have pity on murderers,' 'all
>the prosecutorial processes in the U.S. are evil,' etc... etc...
>etc... If you were ever to post something that was NOT couched
>in such terms I would be astounded. And your post here is
>simply TYPICAL of ALL your posts.
>
>
Did it ever occur to you what purpose and means of emotions are, and that
emotionality is as important an ingredient for a sane judgement than
reasonability?
J.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<Cerb...@riverstyx.net> wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> in
> message news:jonathan-C0F0D4...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> >
> > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
> wrote
> > > in message
> > > news:<jonathan-F28620...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > > > In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> > > of some "lesser" crime.
> > >
> > >
> {Davey's arse kicking deleted}
>
> You mean David "Pull Cock" Wilson, surely?
>
> Any relation to Kevin "Bloody", or is he too_ common_ for a man of your
> obviously serious intellect?
Anyone who can write a song whose chorus starts with the line "Do you
fuck on first dates?" is OK with me. Same goes for anyone who can call
Santa Claus a cunt.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
The closeted homophobia of the wet, politically correct left.
And you wonder why I'm ashamed of them. :(
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
Look up "empirical" in the dictionary, Davey. You might even learn
something.
I used to think that we were blessed on the anti-DP side of the debate.
We only had nutbars like HI1k and Desmond's love of hyperbole to deal
with. Now we've managed to find a genuine retard who is easily as thick
as Davey McDonald and billycunt. How sad.
dirtdog
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
>dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
>
>
>> David "Full Truth" Wilson.
>
>You mean David "Pull Cock" Wilson, surely?
>
No, he means David Wilson "Homes".
Heh. It amuses me... Never mind
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
<snipped>
>IDIOT....Moral philosophy is aka Ethics, and is a branch of
>philosophy....i predicted that you are an imbecile and thus "likely" a
>empirical philosopher{that's the stupid kind}....also i don't bully
>wimps.
>
>
>Now, that's all the truth i dish out to such an idiot tonight.
Hmmmm.
Almost like 'Incubus' without the 'dyslexia'* and pointless lies, this
one.
Interesting....
w00f
*- Actually, we all know that 'Incubus' is not dyslexic - just fucking
illiterate.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: TROLL ABUSE WARNING! (was Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER)
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:14:37 +0000
>
>le Tue, 26 Nov 2002 03:55:53 GMT, dans l'article
><jonathan-723D41...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a dit ...
>
>>> Oh dear! Complimented by Teflon on your mental prowess and there you
>>> go and _heinously_ misspell 'lying' during your post-coital
>>> 'cigarette'.
>
>> Cunt. Everyone's looking at me strangely now that my glass of water is
>> now mostly dripping out of my nose.
>
>They're probably wondering why it's non-alcoholic.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!uio.no!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212
-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: TROLL ABUSE WARNING! (was Re: Bush the TEXECUTIONER)
>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 18:14:37 +0000
>Lines: 16
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <dem5sa...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><3DE0F24A...@hotmail.com>
><a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>
><engE9.281908$r7.51...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>
><jonathan-B417D1...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><3DE2B33C...@hotmail.com>
><jonathan-D3FDA8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><l4m5uusni6dk7ijh5...@4ax.com>
><jonathan-723D41...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1038508598 24721980 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-No-Archive: true
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Cerberus
"dirtdog" <dirtdogDONKOOLRI...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:ougduu847cb7urf5e...@4ax.com...
Oh...now I get it....Too slow
WooF w00f WooF
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dirtdogDONKOOLRI...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2002 02:56:27 -0800, dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson)
> wrote:
[snip]
> >Now, that's all the truth i dish out to such an idiot tonight.
>
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> Almost like 'Incubus' without the 'dyslexia'* and pointless lies, this
> one.
But the illiteracy is there. He was fun while he tried to "argue" the
point. A pity I never got the opportunity to let him know that I fucked
his mum...
> Interesting....
Nope.
Cerberus
> "Cerberus" <Cerb...@riverstyx.net> wrote in message
news:<3de5a...@goliath.newsgroups.com>...
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
wrote in
> > message news:jonathan-C0F0D4...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > > In article <a7f7976a.02112...@posting.google.com>,
> > > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
> > wrote
> > > > in message
news:<jonathan-F28620...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > > > > In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > > dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
{Consumed troll bait snipped}
> I don't listen to such lower class "entertainment".
> Now grow up, ease up on the lube and be careful i don't hit you round
> the head and upside ya fucken face you lunatic, and obviously depraved
> GAY.
Well Davo, What a challenge you present. A man? who attempts to give the
impression of being scholarly and well read, and the best you can come up
with is the tripe served up above. Not a very good effort now was it? You
must feel ashamed. And lucky. Lucky I don't take you up on your threats and
reciprocate in kind.
Then you would be both ashamed and embarrassed, as well as grievously bodily
harmed.
WooF w00f WooF
David McDonald
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote:
>I used to think that we were blessed on the anti-DP side of the debate.
>We only had nutbars like HI1k and Desmond's love of hyperbole to deal
>with.
Desmond's hyperbole? Herbie, don't you mean LIES? Your attempted
reconstruction of Deswaldo will be yet another of your failures.
David
>
>Mr Q. Z. D. (aka Herbie)
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:as5v7d$64g$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> <16 kB snipped>
>
> >> >> I really wonder where you see any emotion in the phrase above. 'The
> death
> >> >> penalty violates the physical integrity of a prisoner' - do you
> disagree
> >> >> with this, or is this statement emotional? If yes or yes - then why?
> >> >>
> >> >The reason you 'don't see it,' is that you have become blind to the
> >> >fact that ALL your arguments are couched in terms of emotional
> >> >outbursts.
> >>
> >> In other words, you can not tell what exactly were emotional with my
> >> statement.
> >
> >In other words... I have NEVER seen you make a statement that
> >WAS NOT couched in emotional outbursts. You have NEVER..
> >EVER... offered any analysis of the DP.
>
> If you say so.....
>
It's rather obvious that I do 'say so.'
>
> > EVERY post... EVERY
> >comment... EVERY sentence... that you place into this group
> >can ALL be seen as simply different variations of the same
> >theme.. 'brutalization,' 'we must have pity on murderers,' 'all
> >the prosecutorial processes in the U.S. are evil,' etc... etc...
> >etc... If you were ever to post something that was NOT couched
> >in such terms I would be astounded. And your post here is
> >simply TYPICAL of ALL your posts.
> >
> >
>
> Did it ever occur to you what purpose and means of emotions are, and that
> emotionality is as important an ingredient for a sane judgement than
> reasonability?
>
Huh??? Emotion can NEVER substitute for a 'sane judgment.'
In fact, it is most often counter-productive to a successful outcome
if introduced into examining a 'judgment.' For example, in the
examination of the DP, emotion always produces a claim that
the retentionist finds some 'perverse satisfaction in the execution
of murderers.' While the abolitionist produces a claim of 'murderer-
lover.' Neither hold any 'sane judgment' in respect to the different
opinions. There are SOME, on both sides of this issue who DO
demonstrate the emotions I speak of, but a 'sane judge' of those
emotions should realize that such emotions are not actually
demonstrated by reasonable people on both sides of this issue.
PV
> J.
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
> In article <a7f7976a.0211...@posting.google.com>,
> dav...@iprimus.com.au (David Wilson) wrote:
>
> > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote
> > in message news:<jonathan-C0F8E8...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> I used to think that we were blessed on the anti-DP side of the debate.
> We only had nutbars like HI1k and Desmond's love of hyperbole to deal
> with.
I do believe you've confused the two... it is Hi1k's love of hyperbole and
desi, who is the fruitcake.
PV
dirtdog
> TRANSLATION -- "I can't handle this."
A bit like 'I don't give a shit about this thread any more'...
--
------------------------
w00f - dirtdog in France
dirtdog @ fruffrant.com
------------------------
David Wilson
ya fucken face you lunatic, and obviously depraved
> reciprocate in kind.
>
> Then you would be both ashamed and embarrassed, as well as grievously bodily
> harmed.
As i've developed my own street fighting style{based heavily on
boxing, and some grappling, plus an exacting respect for efficiency},
the likelyhood is that i'd bust up your 75kg frame tough guy.