Sacco and Vanzetti
giovanni
Sacco and Vanzetti.
Don't forget, Americans
incubus
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:19:15 GMT, giovanni <giova...@nospam.yahoo.it>
a écrit :
>
> > Tomorrow, 23rd August 2002 is the 75.th anniversary of the execution of
> > Sacco and Vanzetti.
>
> remaining relatives of these two innocents, slaughtered by the
> state, in what amounts to 'simple murder' ?
no you may not
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:53:59 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> > Tomorrow, 23rd August 2002 is the 75.th anniversary of the execution
of
> >> > Sacco and Vanzetti.
>
> >> On behalf of Europe, may I offer our sincere condolences to any
> >> remaining relatives of these two innocents, slaughtered by the
> >> state, in what amounts to 'simple murder' ?
>
> > no you may not
>
>
<snip>
very good. My sides have split again. God these rib transplants are getting
tedious
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:15:58 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Just for you, incubus ...
>
getting
> > tedious
>
> foot higher up ...
I can't. I'm usually asleep when they repair them
>
> --
> Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> desmond @ zeouane.org
> http: // www . zeouane . org
GeneralZod
"giovanni" <giova...@nospam.yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it...
> Tomorrow, 23rd August 2002 is the 75.th anniversary of the execution of
> Sacco and Vanzetti.
>
> Don't forget, Americans
Why would I or anyone else give two shits about a couple of people
who would not have been executed if they did not kill someone?
GeneralZod
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:19:15 GMT, giovanni <giova...@nospam.yahoo.it>
a écrit :
>
> remaining relatives of these two innocents, slaughtered by the
> state, in what amounts to 'simple murder' ?
But how do you know they were innocent?
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:35:58 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > I can't. I'm usually asleep when they repair them
>
yes I have noticed this from your posts with APV. All this mach I'm cleverer
than you stuff. How captivating <yawn>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 20:19:15 GMT, giovanni <giova...@nospam.yahoo.it> a écrit :
>
> remaining relatives of these two innocents, slaughtered by the
> state, in what amounts to 'simple murder' ?
>
Since both of those executions preceded the 'simple murder' of six
million humans, slaughtered by the state, it's rather hypocritical to
even speak of them. But then what 'condolences' (sic) would desi
offer to the six million he has called 'smelly auslanders' (HIS words)?
Rather than using a justice system that provided a trial, regardless
of how flawed some may see that trial, it can hardly compare to
Europe's favorite method called 'genocide,' still practiced in some
parts of that backward continent, even today. Desmond has time
and again, proved he is the 'Uncle Tom' of the holocaust, hardly
giving it a glancing thought, while allying himself with those who
would deny it.
Of course, desi has also said that "the dead are dead, and cannot be
honored," thus he apparently intends to demonstrate here his hypocrisy
once again.
PV
> --
> Des On The Road |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
Richard J.
Why should we remember? This case is ancient history with so much
speculation and conspiracy theories that no one really knows the truth
any more.
It belongs to a different time and place. A totally different era.
Of course, if you are still pissed off......... Don't mistake me for
someone who gives a damn.
--
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
"GeneralZod" <z...@pokolistan.com> wrote in message news:4dd99.88$sR7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
attack knew they were on a suicide mission. ROTFFLMAO.
Thinking - in any form - is alien to desi.
PV
Earl Evleth
à z...@pokolistan.com a écrit le 23/08/02 0:03 :
The Sacco and Vanzetti case generated a lot of emotions since claims
of innocence were made. In fact, three separate forensic exams on the
weapon seized at the time of their arrest showed it was the murder
weapon. So the innocence issue is gone. Many still do not know the
facts.
On the other hand, one has to realized that humanists are also against the
execution of the guilty. Why "should they give two shits"? They don`t
think of it that crudely, but they do want to avoid being tainted by
killing people. A key feature of abolitionists is this avoidance, of not
joining with the murderer in committing the kind of act he or she did.
Earl
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:57:21 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> > I can't. I'm usually asleep when they repair them
>
> >> This one could run and run ...
>
> > yes I have noticed this from your posts with APV. All this mach I'm
cleverer
> > than you stuff. How captivating <yawn>
>
>
> A rare display of honesty, LDB, Friday 02 August 2002 ...
LOL. Ripper. Nice one mate now for you to admit to everyone in the class
that you like spotty Allison who sits in the corner on her own :-)
Richard J.
Once again, an abolitionist demonstrates the belief that murder and
executions are the same thing. A human being loses his or her life in
both instances, but one is the act of a criminal while the other is the
result of that act. Why are abolitionist unable to distinguish the
difference?
--
Teflon
Earl Evleth
ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 23/08/02 13:48 :
> Once again, an abolitionist demonstrates the belief that murder and
> executions are the same thing. A human being loses his or her life in
> both instances, but one is the act of a criminal while the other is the
> result of that act. Why are abolitionist unable to distinguish the
> difference?
>
> --
> Teflon
> "Once again, an abolitionist demonstrates the belief that murder and
> executions are the same thing."
There are differences and you mistated the position of abolitionists.
A common feature is that both murder and execution involves the killing of a
human being.
A major difference is that murder may occur at times without any
particularly planning to commit the act, but executions are well thought out
in advance. In fact the death penalty is classed anthropologically as
a ritual. Therefore, murders may be "cold blooded", executions always
are.
Why are retentionists unabled to distinguish that difference?
Earl
Richard J.
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> dans l'article 3D6620F1...@hotmail.com, Richard J. à
> ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 23/08/02 13:48 :
>
> > Once again, an abolitionist demonstrates the belief that murder and
> > executions are the same thing. A human being loses his or her life in
> > both instances, but one is the act of a criminal while the other is the
> > result of that act. Why are abolitionist unable to distinguish the
> > difference?
> >
> > --
> > Teflon
>
> > "Once again, an abolitionist demonstrates the belief that murder and
> > executions are the same thing."
>
> There are differences and you mistated the position of abolitionists.
Did I? You equated murder with the death penalty. I do not.
>
> A common feature is that both murder and execution involves the killing of a
> human being.
As I stated.
>
> A major difference is that murder may occur at times without any
> particularly planning to commit the act, but executions are well thought out
> in advance.
You forgot the fact that executions are legal actions taken against
those who commit the illegal act of murder.
In fact the death penalty is classed anthropologically as
> a ritual. Therefore, murders may be "cold blooded", executions always
> are.
I have no disagreement with that statement at all. Executions should be
deliberate acts, undertaken against those who have committed murder in
order to eliminate them and the threat they pose to all forever.
>
> Why are retentionists unabled to distinguish that difference?
I've never had a problem with that. I have yet to see a retentionists
claim the death penalty is murder or the same as murder. Can you say
the same of abolitionist?
--
Tefrlon
>
> Earl
Earl Evleth
ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 23/08/02 16:22 :
> Did I? You equated murder with the death penalty. I do not.
Wrong, I equated murder and the death penalty with killing.
I equated the death penalty to being purely cold blooded, but
murder is sometimes not, sometimes hot blooded, sometimes
cold blooded so sometimes due to momentary panic.
I hope you can work this out Richard, a bit complicated I know
but do try.
Earl
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D66452D...@hotmail.com>...
As I stated.
R.:
I've never had a problem with that. I have yet to see a retentionists
claim the death penalty is murder or the same as murder.
J., quoting Inkjubus:
"The only humane murder is called execution. The psychological trauma of the
victim of murder is more intense. it is like the whole anxiety of the death
sentence compressed into minutes"
Earl Evleth
K.J.H...@t-online.de a écrit le 23/08/02 21:27 :
> In fact the death penalty is classed anthropologically as
>> a ritual. Therefore, murders may be "cold blooded", executions always
>> are.
> I have no disagreement with that statement at all. Executions should be
> deliberate acts, undertaken against those who have committed murder in
> order to eliminate them and the threat they pose to all forever.
If this were a general moral principle we would execute all murderers. We
do not, so we get in the business of trying to decide which murders merit
execution. We end up executing only a minute proportion of all murders
we send to prison. In fact, in spite of former murderers murdering again
it is not a statistical discernable effect. Not executing has no effect on
homicide statistics.
Recidivist statistics show that more new murders are committed by released
criminals who have previously not murdered than release murderers. Using
your argument we should kill them all to eliminate the threat. Males
present a far greater threat than females, so logically we should eliminate
them too.
>
> J., quoting Inkjubus:
>
> "The only humane murder is called execution. The psychological trauma of the
> victim of murder is more intense. it is like the whole anxiety of the death
> sentence compressed into minutes"
I challenge the first sentence, just quoting somebody does not make it so.
Secondly, a murder may be instantaneous and involve no trauma at all for the
victim. Even in violent murder where the victim knows he is being killed,
the time can be short, a cruel murder is something like one involving
torture, taking a long time. There the trauma is the greatest. The longer
the period which the person is the treat of death, the greater the
trauma, like some of those on death row. If you know somebody
on death row, this will have meaning.
The whole quotation appears absurd.
Earl
Jürgen
Earl Evleth schrieb in Nachricht ...
>dans l'article ak61nu$v76$03$1...@news.t-online.com, Jürgen à
>K.J.H...@t-online.de a écrit le 23/08/02 21:27 :
>
>>
>>
>> "The only humane murder is called execution. The psychological trauma of
the
>> victim of murder is more intense. it is like the whole anxiety of the
death
>> sentence compressed into minutes"
>
>I challenge the first sentence, just quoting somebody does not make it so.
>
>Secondly, a murder may be instantaneous and involve no trauma at all for
the
>victim. Even in violent murder where the victim knows he is being killed,
>the time can be short, a cruel murder is something like one involving
>torture, taking a long time. There the trauma is the greatest. The longer
>the period which the person is the treat of death, the greater the
>trauma, like some of those on death row. If you know somebody
>on death row, this will have meaning.
>
>The whole quotation appears absurd.
>
Well, Earl, Richard asked for a retentionist comparing the DP with murder,
so I quoted. No position or standpoint of mine implied.
I rather think capital punishment equates an infection of the institution
which should reflect the best effords and wisdom of a society, i.e. the
justice system, with individual brutality. Even much worse, many
retentionists evoke by their observable attitudes the impression of lurking
around seeking a legal opportunity to bring a human at his (wits) end. Blunt
sadism is the companion of any execution in the US.
Sincerely
Jürgen
Richard J.
What you actually said, and subsequently cut in your replies was:
"On the other hand, one has to realized that humanists are also against
the execution of the guilty. Why "should they give two shits"? They
don't think of it that crudely, but they do want to avoid being tainted
by killing people. A key feature of abolitionists is this avoidance, of
not joining with the murderer in committing the kind of act he or she
did."
Please note the last sentence. "A key feature of abolitionists is this
avoidance, of not joining with the murderer in committing the kind of
act he or she did."
That seems to me, Earl, that you ARE equating a legal execution with
murder, a theme we see time after time from abolitionist. It is a bit
more subtle as befits your advanced age and experience, but still .....
Abolitionists readily admit that executions are the deliberate taking of
human life. That is why they are, in fact, classified legal homicides.
That's as far as the similarity goes. To attempt to say abolitionists
somehow HAVE to avoid joining in acts such as murderers commit. It just
isn't true.
Perhaps you can get Gaston to explain the difference to you. I hear
he's a real son of a bitch.
--
Teflon
Giorgio Torrieri
Moron.
Compton's
Encyclopedia at America ONline (reprinted without permission):
SACCO-VANZETTI CASE. One of the most sensational murder trials in United
States history took place in Massachusetts in 1921. Although the
defendants were convicted and later executed, the results of the trial
aroused worldwide protests.
Nicola Sacco was born on April 22, 1891, in Apulia, Italy, and
Bartolomeo Vanzetti was born on June 11, 1888, in Villafalletto, Italy.
They both arrived in the United States in 1908. Sacco settled in Milford,
Mass., and worked in a shoe factory. Vanzetti lived elsewhere before
settling in Plymouth, Mass., in 1915, where he became a fish peddler. Both
men left the country for Mexico during World War I to avoid military
service. They returned to Massachusetts after the war.
On April 15, 1920, during a payroll robbery at a shoe company in South
Braintree, Mass., the company paymaster, F.A. Parmenter, and the guard,
Alessandro Berardelli, were shot and killed. On May 5 Sacco and Vanzetti
were arrested and charged with the crime. The fact that both were armed at
the time made them prime suspects. In addition they had reputations as
draft dodgers, political radicals, and anarchists.
On May 31, 1921, the case was brought before Judge Webster Thayer of
the state superior court. There was no hard evidence tying the defendants
to the crime. The jury refused to listen to the testimony of any
Italian-born witnesses. The judge was openly biased. Sacco and Vanzetti
were convicted because they were radicals and because they were Italian.
The trial ended on July 14, when both defendants were found guilty of
murder in the first degree. After receiving death sentences they appealed
for a new trial. Judge Thayer denied their motion in November 1924. A year
later, on Nov. 18, 1925, Celestino Madeiros confessed that he had
participated in the crime with the Joe Morelli gang. Still the state
supreme court refused to grant a new trial because, at the time, the
original trial judge had the final authority to reopen a case.
A storm of protest arose. A committee headed by A. Lawrence Lowell,
president of Harvard University, issued a report in August 1927 stating
that the trial had been fair. With the issuance of the report and with
Governor A.T. Fuller's refusal to grant clemency, protests increased.
Benito Mussolini, premier of Italy, made a special plea for their lives.
Demonstrations were held in major cities. Bombs were set off in New York
City and Philadelphia. All protest was to no avail. Sacco and Vanzetti
were both executed by electrocution on Aug. 23, 1927.
Agitation continued long after the execution. As late as April 1959 a
proposal was laid before the Massachusetts legislature asking the governor
to grant a retroactive pardon for the two. The motion failed. In the 1970s
a former member of organized crime, Vincent Teresa, wrote his
autobiography. In it he declared that Sacco and Vanzetti had not been
involved in the South Braintree killings. He said the actual guilty
parties were members of a gang of Italian-American criminals.
Richard J.
So?
Richard J.
And the fact that the guns Sacco and Vanzettin carried WERE positively
identified as the murder weapons?
--
Teflon
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:09:05 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:08:21 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> But how do you know they were innocent?
>
>> The same way he 'knows' that NONE of the terrorists in the WTC
>> attack knew they were on a suicide mission. ROTFFLMAO.
>> Thinking - in any form - is alien to desi.
>
>Tell us again about O.J. Simpson's 'murder conviction', LDB ...
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!new
s.gtei.net!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.
de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:09:05 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 17
>Message-ID: <slrnamcui1.18al.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><4dd99.88$sR7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><Fbl99.262376$s8.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030126232 47745323 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:08:58 +0000
>
>Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:18:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> > Tomorrow, 23rd August 2002 is the 75.th anniversary of the execution of
>>> > Sacco and Vanzetti.
>
>>> On behalf of Europe, may I offer our sincere condolences to any
>>> remaining relatives of these two innocents, slaughtered by the
>>> state, in what amounts to 'simple murder' ?
>
>{ snip LDB screaming at his monitor again, 'that fuckin' desi got me
> a good 'un, again !!! }
>
>'Nuff'' (sic) said ...
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!nyc
mny1-snh1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!colt.net!newspeer.c
lara.net!news.clara.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e1
17.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!n
>ot-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:08:58 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 19
>Message-ID: <slrnamcuhq.18al.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><zje99.254973$s8.48...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030126231 47745323 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B98BAC7D.193D%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
about yourself, and not believe you have a 'corroded soul,' regardless
of how many murders are committed by those who have already
murdered. Don't kid yourself.. there is only a certain 'joining with the
murderer,' when you expect to maintain the life of that murderer. There
is a 'joining with the VICTIM,' if you expect justice.
PV
> Earl
>
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:18:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> > Tomorrow, 23rd August 2002 is the 75.th anniversary of the execution of
> >> > Sacco and Vanzetti.
>
> >> On behalf of Europe, may I offer our sincere condolences to any
> >> remaining relatives of these two innocents, slaughtered by the
> >> state, in what amounts to 'simple murder' ?
>
> a good 'un, again !!! }
>
Since both of those executions preceded the 'simple murder' of six
million humans, slaughtered by the state, it's rather hypocritical to
even speak of them. But then what 'condolences' (sic) would desi
offer to the six million he has called 'smelly auslanders' (HIS words)?
Rather than using a justice system that provided a trial, regardless
of how flawed some may see that trial, it can hardly compare to
Europe's favorite method called 'genocide,' still practiced in some
parts of that backward continent, even today. Desmond has time
and again, proved he is the 'Uncle Tom' of the holocaust, hardly
giving it a glancing thought, while allying himself with those who
would deny it.
Of course, desi has also said that "the dead are dead, and cannot be
honored," thus he apparently intends to demonstrate here his hypocrisy
once again.
> 'Nuff'' (sic) said ...
>
Yes... now that I've repeated it for your dumb ass.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:08:21 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> But how do you know they were innocent?
>
> > The same way he 'knows' that NONE of the terrorists in the WTC
> > attack knew they were on a suicide mission. ROTFFLMAO.
> > Thinking - in any form - is alien to desi.
>
>
Quite clearly, I never said there was a 'murder conviction.' Thus,
you're simply lying again.
Jürgen
Richard J. schrieb in Nachricht <3D66D64C...@hotmail.com>...
> R.:
> I've never had a problem with that. I have yet to see a retentionists
> claim the death penalty is murder or the same as murder.
>
> J., quoting Inkjubus:
>
> "The only humane murder is called execution. The psychological trauma of
the
> victim of murder is more intense. it is like the whole anxiety of the
death
> sentence compressed into minutes"
So?
Who asks deserves an answer.
Earl Evleth
ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 24/08/02 0:55 :
> That seems to me, Earl, that you ARE equating a legal execution with
> murder, a theme we see time after time from abolitionist.
No, not equating, legal execution is worse in that it is thought out and
cold blooded. They are not the same in that sense.
In some cases the procedure leading up to the execution is unusually
cruel. One of the things the French would do, is not announce the day
of the execution. The to-be-excuted would only know it would occur
in the early hours of the morning, so any morning the guards could rush
in and grab him, haul him out for beheading. The gruesome aspects of
the beheading both fascinated and horrified the general population.
Judging from the comments of the one person we deal with in death
row the years and years the process takes and the conditions of
incarceration are in themselves unusually cruel. The whole machinery
of death is inhumane. Killing is so disgusting that we have now asked
technology to do it in our place. We delegate to the state the job
of doing it and the state dodges a bit since its agents don`t really
like getting involved with this dirty mess either. Being an executioner
has taken its emotional toll on many persons.
Murder itself is, unfortunately, quite often human. Most of them are
committed under the influence and killing people one knows. One can
end up killing in a robbery when the original intent was just to get
the money, using the gun to assure that. Murderers become inhumane
when the like it, the kill for the pleasure of it. At that level, the
"liking it" of the sociopath joins with those in the general population
who like executions.
Whatever, on most levels execution and murder are forms of killing which
are usually different in many critical ways. They are alike only in being
forms of killing. But the premeditated aspect of executions casts a dark
shadow on this ritual.
Earl
Earl Evleth
ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 24/08/02 2:49 :
> And the fact that the guns Sacco and Vanzettin carried WERE positively
> identified as the murder weapons?
At the time of their arrest, each of had possession of a 32 caliber loaded
weapon. At the trial itself there was some question about the guns
taken being involved, but the arms expert Charles Amburgh identified
one of the bullets taken from from the victim as being fired from
Sacco`s revolver. This was one of the early on use of bullistics.
In 1961 and 1983 repeated bullistic examinations
were carried out and reconfirmed the original Amburgh identification.
I took this information from "The Casebook of Forensic Detection",
published by Colin Evans in 1996, but one other similar book we
own has the same information.
Strictly speaking Vanzetti`s weapon may not have been proven
as involved in the crime. I have seen no mentioned of this is the
brief descriptions we have. But the fatal bullet was fired from
the gun seized from Sacco at the time of his arrest. I think the
history of this aspect of the case is closed.
Earl
Richard J.
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> dans l'article 3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com, Richard J. à
> ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 24/08/02 0:55 :
>
> > That seems to me, Earl, that you ARE equating a legal execution with
> > murder, a theme we see time after time from abolitionist.
>
> No, not equating, legal execution is worse in that it is thought out and
> cold blooded. They are not the same in that sense.
Oh, so now a legal execution is worse than murder in your opinion.
>
> In some cases the procedure leading up to the execution is unusually
> cruel. One of the things the French would do, is not announce the day
> of the execution. The to-be-excuted would only know it would occur
> in the early hours of the morning, so any morning the guards could rush
> in and grab him, haul him out for beheading. The gruesome aspects of
> the beheading both fascinated and horrified the general population.
>
> Judging from the comments of the one person we deal with in death
> row the years and years the process takes and the conditions of
> incarceration are in themselves unusually cruel. The whole machinery
> of death is inhumane. Killing is so disgusting that we have now asked
> technology to do it in our place. We delegate to the state the job
> of doing it and the state dodges a bit since its agents don`t really
> like getting involved with this dirty mess either. Being an executioner
> has taken its emotional toll on many persons.
>
> Murder itself is, unfortunately, quite often human. Most of them are
> committed under the influence and killing people one knows. One can
> end up killing in a robbery when the original intent was just to get
> the money, using the gun to assure that. Murderers become inhumane
> when the like it, the kill for the pleasure of it. At that level, the
> "liking it" of the sociopath joins with those in the general population
> who like executions.
Equating murder and executions again? I thought you thought executions
worse than murder.
>
> Whatever, on most levels execution and murder are forms of killing which
> are usually different in many critical ways. They are alike only in being
> forms of killing. But the premeditated aspect of executions casts a dark
> shadow on this ritual.
>
> Earl
I don''t think so Earl.
--
Teflon
Richard J.
Not for some Wops evidently.
Earl Evleth
ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 24/08/02 12:46 :
> I think the
>> history of this aspect of the case is closed.
>>
>> Earl
>
> Not for some Wops evidently.
It was the type of case which builds a framework of disinformation
to the point that a new observer has to be careful about making
a snap judgment. That disinformation can occur on either side
of the issue.
A long time ago, Donna and I decided not to get involved in such cases.
We, in fact, prefer the case of true guilt for dealing with the death
penalty issue, the one case we are actively involved in is he case of
a self-admitted murderer. I don`t think at any point he had claimed
innocence, the legal issue was whether the murder qualified for the death
penalty in the state of Arizona.
However, when the actual issue of the execution comes up we have to get
involved in some manner. At that point it is the death penalty which is the
issue and not the possible innocence of the about to be executed.
Earl
Earl
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnamfqkv.1fj9....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:11:36 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> >> But how do you know they were innocent?
>
> >> > The same way he 'knows' that NONE of the terrorists in the WTC
> >> > attack knew they were on a suicide mission. ROTFFLMAO.
> >> > Thinking - in any form - is alien to desi.
>
> >> Tell us again about O.J. Simpson's 'murder conviction', LDB ...
>
> > Quite clearly, I never said there was a 'murder conviction.' Thus,
> > you're simply lying again.
>
> he pounds on the desk again ... *snigger* ... now, could you give us
> the date of this 'murder conviction in a civil court', that was
> reached against O.J. Simpson ..?
>
No, I could not. Because I've never claimed there was a 'murder
conviction in a civil court,' nor in any court. Nor can a 'murder
conviction' be obtained in a civil court. Once again, you are
simply LYING. Which is not uncommon, coming from you.
In fact, I have mentioned Simpson a grand total of 3 times,
in posts where others have mentioned him 9 times, prior to
JPB bringing up the one post where I had expressed an
'OPINION.' In none of those posts did I refer to Simpson as
receiving a 'murder conviction' in ANY court. Unlike you, I
archive all my posts, so I'd be interested in seeing what
particular post you are referring to, or else you are simply
lying again.
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> dans l'article 3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com, Richard J. à
> ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 24/08/02 0:55 :
>
> > That seems to me, Earl, that you ARE equating a legal execution with
> > murder, a theme we see time after time from abolitionist.
>
> No, not equating, legal execution is worse in that it is thought out and
> cold blooded. They are not the same in that sense.
>
only in the sense that it is done without emotion or excitement,
(although there is certainly an emotional aspect to it from the
families and the murderer), as well it should be. But it is certainly
not done in the sense of being deliberately cruel... which is the
difference. The lack of 'passion,' presumably making it 'cold-
blooded' in your view, is more of a positive rather than negative
effect, since it demonstrates that 'passion' was not the REASON
for the execution. Passion belongs to the murder and vigilante
justice only. The execution is conducted as a result of a reasoned
judgment, taking many years, and passing many hurdles. If you
wish to paint anything as 'thought out' and 'cold-blooded' (in the
sense of an absence of passion) in the justice system, then the
sentence of ANY prison time, can also be thought of as 'thought
out' and 'cold blooded' (in the sense of an absence of passion).
Face it, Earl. You simply see the DP as NOT another sentence
for a murder. You place it OUTSIDE of the realm that remains
Justice, by presuming it is DIFFERENT. But in the sense of
'thought out,' and 'cold-blooded' it is no different than ANY
penalty for a crime. They are ALL 'thought out,' and 'cold-blooded.'
But they are not murder... and clearly you come to a false
conclusion that one of those penalties is 'worse than murder.'
<personal 'dear diary' entry of Earl clipped again>
> Murder itself is, unfortunately, quite often human. Most of them are
> committed under the influence and killing people one knows. One can
> end up killing in a robbery when the original intent was just to get
> the money, using the gun to assure that. Murderers become inhumane
> when the like it, the kill for the pleasure of it. At that level, the
> "liking it" of the sociopath joins with those in the general population
> who like executions.
>
You're a fruitcake, Earl. A simple minded fruitcake. Murder is 'human'
only in respect to the fact that only 'humans' can commit that act.
In the rest of the animal kingdom, murder has no meaning. Of
course being under the influence, killing people one knows, and
a murder committed without intent happen. In my mind, none of
them justify the DP, although we have certainly executed some
murderers of that sort. But then you go totally off your rocker,
by equating a serial-killer with those who see serial-killers as
not generally acting in a manner we expect from our species.
It's the most absurd conclusion I've ever seen. Like your
claim that fighting monsters places you in danger of becoming
a monster. When actually NOT fighting monsters MAKES
you a monster-enabler. Without a doubt. Just ask a bunch
of people from a few years back.
> Whatever, on most levels execution and murder are forms of killing which
> are usually different in many critical ways. They are alike only in being
> forms of killing. But the premeditated aspect of executions casts a dark
> shadow on this ritual.
Rubbish... that would imply there is a 'dark shadow,' on EVERY
sentence we provide for a criminal act. Kidnapping and incarceration
'are alike only in being forms of' involuntary captivity. But no one
would claim that the premeditated aspect of incarceration casts a
'dark shadow,' on that ritual.
PV
>
> Earl
BTW -- Glad to see you back -- 'corroded soul' and all.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:20:48 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:11:36 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> >> But how do you know they were innocent?
>
>>> > The same way he 'knows' that NONE of the terrorists in the WTC
>>> > attack knew they were on a suicide mission. ROTFFLMAO.
>>> > Thinking - in any form - is alien to desi.
>
>>> Tell us again about O.J. Simpson's 'murder conviction', LDB ...
>
>> Quite clearly, I never said there was a 'murder conviction.' Thus,
>> you're simply lying again.
>
>ROTFLMAO ... seems little ponytailed LDB is shaking his trailer as
>he pounds on the desk again ... *snigger* ... now, could you give us
>the date of this 'murder conviction in a civil court', that was
>reached against O.J. Simpson ..?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feedme.news.mediaways.net
!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: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:20:48 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 23
>Message-ID: <slrnamfqkv.1fj9....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><4dd99.88$sR7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><Fbl99.262376$s8.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamcui1.18al.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><YHD99.275886$s8.50...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030220552 50433042 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
<9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> dans l'article 3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com, Richard J. à
>> ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 24/08/02 0:55 :
>>
>> > That seems to me, Earl, that you ARE equating a legal execution with
>> > murder, a theme we see time after time from abolitionist.
>>
>> No, not equating, legal execution is worse in that it is thought out and
>> cold blooded. They are not the same in that sense.
>>
>It is certainly 'thought out,' as well it should be. It is 'cold-blooded'
Observation proves this statement plainly wrong. There are lots of people
who use the legalized cruelty as a platform for to satisfy personal hateful
feelings in a compensatory way.
>(although there is certainly an emotional aspect to it from the
>families and the murderer), as well it should be.
So what now? Is the purpose of capital punishment the unemotional protection
of society, as you are persistently claiming, or is it what your statement
above implies, i.e. the symbolic outlawing of a handful of wrongdoers,
demonstrating power over life and death by fully deliberately playing out
the thoroughly emotional cards 'fear of death' and 'revenge'?
But it is certainly
>not done in the sense of being deliberately cruel... which is the
>difference.
The death penalty in the United States Of America is fully deliberately,
intentionally and premediatedly cruel. The 'deserves'-argument is what makes
the cruelty of death row and execution a declared aim.
The lack of 'passion,' presumably making it 'cold-
>blooded' in your view, is more of a positive rather than negative
>effect, since it demonstrates that 'passion' was not the REASON
>for the execution. Passion belongs to the murder and vigilante
>justice only.
That official institutions have token in their hands what was done by
vigilants once is proof for exactly nothing. The proof or disproof plays on
a total other stage, Sir. To see whether your statements hold any water or
not requires to analyze whether the spectrum of executed and condemned by
your system were distinctable via their crimes and culpability from not
death sentenced offenders.
The execution is conducted as a result of a reasoned
>judgment, taking many years, and passing many hurdles. If you
>wish to paint anything as 'thought out' and 'cold-blooded' (in the
>sense of an absence of passion) in the justice system, then the
>sentence of ANY prison time, can also be thought of as 'thought
>out' and 'cold blooded' (in the sense of an absence of passion).
>
>Face it, Earl. You simply see the DP as NOT another sentence
>for a murder. You place it OUTSIDE of the realm that remains
>Justice, by presuming it is DIFFERENT. But in the sense of
>'thought out,' and 'cold-blooded' it is no different than ANY
>penalty for a crime.
The death penalty shows most obvious principled and practical differences to
any other penalty of the viable spectrum. There is barely even one aspect
where the DP would integrate properly, and this circumstance has even led to
a kind of parallel-justice system. Previously discussed en detaille.
Jürgen
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 25/08/02 2:50 :
> Rubbish... that would imply there is a 'dark shadow,' on EVERY
> sentence we provide for a criminal act.
Hardly "every", my misguided son.
I was referring to the process of killing somebody. That includes
the act of the murderer and the state.
It can also include a severity of punishment which compromise
our humanity. We don`t cut off the hands of thieves, nor even
their noses anymore. We once did, including branding and a
number of other "cruel and unusual" punishments in the colonial
days. By the time the constitution was written these practices
were viewed as cruel and unusual, and written into the
Constitution without specifying which punishments were cruel
and unusual.
I don`t know if the framers of the constitution thought about
"evolving community standards", but they certainly lived in a
period of enlightenment compared to what had been going
on in the colonies a mere 100 years prior to their time. They
were moving out of the "dark shadow" of the past.
Next, although the Supreme Court majority at times likes to
be absolutist with regard to the constitution, not regarding it
as a living but static institution, the "evolving community
standards" rulings do sneak in now and then introducing
(horrors) some moral evolution into the legal process, from
darkness to light.
So the lesson is clear, "cruel and unusual" is a shifting standard.
The darker the collective soul of the society, the more cruel and
unusual it is. Evolving community standards may catch up with America's
death penalty. Enlightenment has not yet fully occurred so darkness
remains. In Europe, we have stepped out into the light.
Earl
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>news:slrnamfqkv.1fj9....@lievre.voute.net...
>> Le Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:11:36 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>>
>> >> >> But how do you know they were innocent?
>>
>> >> > The same way he 'knows' that NONE of the terrorists in the WTC
>> >> > attack knew they were on a suicide mission. ROTFFLMAO.
>> >> > Thinking - in any form - is alien to desi.
>>
>> >> Tell us again about O.J. Simpson's 'murder conviction', LDB ...
>>
>> > Quite clearly, I never said there was a 'murder conviction.' Thus,
>> > you're simply lying again.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO ... seems little ponytailed LDB is shaking his trailer as
>> he pounds on the desk again ... *snigger* ... now, could you give us
>> the date of this 'murder conviction in a civil court', that was
>> reached against O.J. Simpson ..?
>>
>No, I could not. Because I've never claimed there was a 'murder
>conviction in a civil court,' nor in any court. Nor can a 'murder
>conviction' be obtained in a civil court. Once again, you are
>simply LYING.
No he isn't.
"Of course he was found guilty in a civil court"
Just admit you were wrong, PV and move along...
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B98EA0DA.1EFD%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> dans l'article 9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 25/08/02 2:50 :
>
> > Rubbish... that would imply there is a 'dark shadow,' on EVERY
> > sentence we provide for a criminal act.
>
> Hardly "every", my misguided son.
>
> I was referring to the process of killing somebody. That includes
> the act of the murderer and the state.
>
YOUR words. You sentence was "But the premeditated
aspect of executions casts a dark shadow on this ritual."
no 'special' premeditation to the DP, which would make it
different from another penalty in respect to 'premeditation.'
We do not sentence to ANY penalty without 'premeditation.'
You were referring to the DP, but in respect to 'premeditation.'
ALL SENTENCES are PREMEDITATED. Executions are
simply a penalty for a crime. That certainly implies EXACTLY
what I've said.
> It can also include a severity of punishment which compromise
> our humanity. We don`t cut off the hands of thieves, nor even
> their noses anymore. We once did, including branding and a
> number of other "cruel and unusual" punishments in the colonial
> days. By the time the constitution was written these practices
> were viewed as cruel and unusual, and written into the
> Constitution without specifying which punishments were cruel
> and unusual.
>
Actually, you haven't really said anything here, Earl. Except
how we 'did things before.' We don't do them that way
anymore, so it's entirely irrelevant.
> I don`t know if the framers of the constitution thought about
> "evolving community standards", but they certainly lived in a
> period of enlightenment compared to what had been going
> on in the colonies a mere 100 years prior to their time. They
> were moving out of the "dark shadow" of the past.
>
Read my lips -- 'The past, Earl... the past.' Move into the
present, please. if we argue the 'past,' you know where
that always leads, once we go back further than Furman,
don't you? It leads to a whole different set of parameters.
> Next, although the Supreme Court majority at times likes to
> be absolutist with regard to the constitution, not regarding it
> as a living but static institution, the "evolving community
> standards" rulings do sneak in now and then introducing
> (horrors) some moral evolution into the legal process, from
> darkness to light.
>
Soapbox time again.
> So the lesson is clear, "cruel and unusual" is a shifting standard.
> The darker the collective soul of the society, the more cruel and
> unusual it is. Evolving community standards may catch up with America's
> death penalty. Enlightenment has not yet fully occurred so darkness
> remains. In Europe, we have stepped out into the light.
>
That actually represents nothing more than your opinion,
Earl. And we already know how unworthy that is. Your
very words that you express against ALL retentionists
demonstrates a severe form of bigotry. And you have
certainly expressed such bigotry not only against me,
but against ALL retentionists. The next thing you know,
you'll be referring to Americans as 'smelly auslanders,'
as your buddy has done toward the Czechs and the
Poles. You should be ashamed to associate with him.
In sum... Isn't it ever possible that you could argue the
DP without presuming all who support it are 'evil'? Since
I do not presume all who oppose it are 'evil.'
PV
> Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:50:13 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Quite clearly, I never said there was a 'murder conviction.' Thus,
> >> > you're simply lying again.
>
> >> ROTFLMAO ... seems little ponytailed LDB is shaking his trailer as
> >> he pounds on the desk again ... *snigger* ... now, could you give us
> >> the date of this 'murder conviction in a civil court', that was
> >> reached against O.J. Simpson ..?
>
> > No, I could not.
>
> spittle ... well I hope it's spittle ... ah yes, 'at his age, you
> can be sure that it's spittle ... }
>
> ROTFLMAO !!!
>
Look who's obsessing? Have any proof of what you say? Obviously
not. But when one talks of spraying spittle and semen about in a
grotesque, drooling dance of perversion, one need only know of your
'drooling dance' in the execution of Richard Kutzner, who strangled
Rita Van Huss in her business. You 'danced' that dance, when
you called her a Dutch porno star, in posting "What do Dutch porno
stars have to do with this ..?" followed by your sly little wink, when
her name as a victim was mentioned by another poster. Seriously,
FDP, you need help. Your macabre behavior when speaking of victims
has deteriorated to the point of an 'obsession.' Think about your
vivid description of the last 43 seconds in the life of a victim. I
really believe your tongue was hanging lopsided from your mouth,
and your eyes were glazed in enjoyment as you posted that description.
There is no doubt in my mind that your participation in this group is
testing the edges of your sanity.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:akag4t$1r9$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
> <9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >
> >"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >> dans l'article 3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com, Richard J. à
> >> ric...@hotmail.com a écrit le 24/08/02 0:55 :
> >>
> >> > That seems to me, Earl, that you ARE equating a legal execution with
> >> > murder, a theme we see time after time from abolitionist.
> >>
> >> No, not equating, legal execution is worse in that it is thought out and
> >> cold blooded. They are not the same in that sense.
> >>
> >It is certainly 'thought out,' as well it should be. It is 'cold-blooded'
> >only in the sense that it is done without emotion or excitement, ..
>
> Observation proves this statement plainly wrong. There are lots of people
> who use the legalized cruelty as a platform for to satisfy personal hateful
> feelings in a compensatory way.
>
call those who see it as justice, all the dirty names that satisfy
their own personal hate. A good example is the very person I was
responding to. Try to tell me that his opposition to the DP is not
filled with hate for those who support it? He's called those who
support it as having a 'corroded soul.' Is that any kind of rational
thought or argument? Another example is desmond coughlan.
Think about him calling a mother whose son had just been murdered,
perverse. Think about his words -- "That the relatives of a murder
victim, should have a rather perverse desire to see the death penalty
reintroduced.." Clearly the 'personalized' hate that is evident in this
group, comes from a handful of abolitionists. Think of all those
abolitionists who call it 'state-sponsored murder.' Do you not think
that is HATE FILLED demagoguery? The implication is quite clear. They
are calling those who support the DP as also supporting murder, using
their hate as a 'tactic.' While we ALL know who MORE 'support' murder -
the retentionist or the abolitionist. The only ones who presume 'legalized
cruelty' in the DP are abolitionists. There is no question of that, since
no rational retentionist argues that 'cruelty' must be a PART of execution.
Only abolitionists argue in that direction. And THEY, and you, use that
platform to satisfy your illogical argument. We may well argue with
each other, and call each other names. But when one attacks ALL
who hold to a concept, that represents a form of bigotry, which does
not permit rational argument. It is what I found difficult to swallow in
your argument that all members of the pardon and parole board had
to be evil.
>
> >(although there is certainly an emotional aspect to it from the
> >families and the murderer), as well it should be.
>
> So what now? Is the purpose of capital punishment the unemotional protection
> of society, as you are persistently claiming, or is it what your statement
> above implies, i.e. the symbolic outlawing of a handful of wrongdoers,
> demonstrating power over life and death by fully deliberately playing out
> the thoroughly emotional cards 'fear of death' and 'revenge'?
>
becomes 'passion' and that is not the same as 'reason.' And we
certainly expect to 'reason' when we sentence to the DP. Otherwise,
it is no different than a lynch mob. And the DP is far from that, given
the years between sentencing and execution. The PURPOSE is as
I have stated all along. Society self-defense. And it is obvious in your
'emotion' filled words, that you attempt to put other words in my mouth.
Since I see no 'symbolism' in it, other than the recognition of a society
that it will not accept murder, just as society will not accept rape
by providing a penalty for THAT crime. The only 'symbolism' is the
fact that we create penalties for ALL crimes. Society has ALWAYS
had 'power over life and death.' And has ALWAYS presumed that the
INDIVIDUAL does not. Even individual self-defense must be satisfied
to society that it WAS self-defense. One cannot CLAIM it, without
PROVING it, to the satisfaction of society. Thus, murder is
recognized as the act of an individual acting as a renegade against
society and its members.
> But it is certainly
> >not done in the sense of being deliberately cruel... which is the
> >difference.
>
> The death penalty in the United States Of America is fully deliberately,
> intentionally and premediatedly cruel. The 'deserves'-argument is what makes
> the cruelty of death row and execution a declared aim.
>
Ho hum... here we go. It is deliberate -- and it should be. It is intentional
-- which has no meaning since all penalties are intentional, even those
that convict the innocent. It is premeditated -- as it takes many years
of due process to exact that penalty - as it should be. But it is
not cruel. That's simply the mantra of some abolitionists. Quite
clearly... cruelty does not enter into it, except in the examination of
how cruel the cause (the murder) was to expect such a penalty.
> > The lack of 'passion,' presumably making it 'cold-
> >blooded' in your view, is more of a positive rather than negative
> >effect, since it demonstrates that 'passion' was not the REASON
> >for the execution. Passion belongs to the murder and vigilante
> >justice only.
>
> That official institutions have token in their hands what was done by
> vigilants once is proof for exactly nothing.
Quite untrue. It proves everything. We turn NO justice over to
vigilante justice. And the justice we exact bears absolutely no
resemblance to vigilante justice.
> The proof or disproof plays on
> a total other stage, Sir.
Perhaps you believe that is a neat turn of a phrase, but it is meaningless.
The stage we play on, is life, not fantasy. We ALL play on that stage.
> To see whether your statements hold any water or
> not requires to analyze whether the spectrum of executed and condemned by
> your system were distinctable via their crimes and culpability from not
> death sentenced offenders.
>
Once again. You've failed to adequately communicate your thoughts.
Because I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.
And I do try hard to do so.
> >The execution is conducted as a result of a reasoned
> >judgment, taking many years, and passing many hurdles. If you
> >wish to paint anything as 'thought out' and 'cold-blooded' (in the
> >sense of an absence of passion) in the justice system, then the
> >sentence of ANY prison time, can also be thought of as 'thought
> >out' and 'cold blooded' (in the sense of an absence of passion).
> >
> >Face it, Earl. You simply see the DP as NOT another sentence
> >for a murder. You place it OUTSIDE of the realm that remains
> >Justice, by presuming it is DIFFERENT. But in the sense of
> >'thought out,' and 'cold-blooded' it is no different than ANY
> >penalty for a crime.
>
> The death penalty shows most obvious principled and practical differences to
> any other penalty of the viable spectrum.
Huh??? So what? 20 year sentences are different from 10 year
sentences. L wop is different from a 20 year sentence. Your
argument is moot. All sentences of different length or variety are
simply different. And they are made different to meet those
principled and practical differences we expect to achieve. In the
case of the DP, we expect to achieve absolute incapacitation.
And it is the ONLY penalty where we expect and receive the
absolute results we anticipated.
> There is barely even one aspect
> where the DP would integrate properly, and this circumstance has even led to
> a kind of parallel-justice system. Previously discussed en detaille.
>
Might I add.... crapola.
PV
> Jürgen
>
>
>
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:31:50 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 25 Aug 2002 00:50:13 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > Quite clearly, I never said there was a 'murder conviction.' Thus,
>>> > you're simply lying again.
>
>>> ROTFLMAO ... seems little ponytailed LDB is shaking his trailer as
>>> he pounds on the desk again ... *snigger* ... now, could you give us
>>> the date of this 'murder conviction in a civil court', that was
>>> reached against O.J. Simpson ..?
>
>> No, I could not.
>
>{ snip LDB inventing a new dance, 'the trailer dance' as he sprays
> spittle ... well I hope it's spittle ... ah yes, 'at his age, you
> can be sure that it's spittle ... }
>
>ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.d
e!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:31:50 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 26
>Message-ID: <slrnamh5fm.1hbr....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><4dd99.88$sR7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><Fbl99.262376$s8.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamcui1.18al.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><YHD99.275886$s8.50...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamfqkv.1fj9....@lievre.voute.net>
><9RV99.375858$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030264465 50807308 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:59:03 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 25 Aug 2002 17:06:01 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit
>:
>
>>>No, I could not. Because I've never claimed there was a 'murder
>>>conviction in a civil court,' nor in any court. Nor can a 'murder
>>>conviction' be obtained in a civil court. Once again, you are
>>>simply LYING.
>
>> No he isn't.
>>
>> "Of course he was found guilty in a civil court"
>>
>> Just admit you were wrong, PV and move along...
>
>Now he's going to claim that being 'found guilty', doesn't equate to
>'a conviction' ...
>
>Ho, ho ... this _is_ fun ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feedme.news.mediaways.net
!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not
-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 15:59:03 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 23
>Message-ID: <slrnamhvm7.1io3....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><4dd99.88$sR7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><Fbl99.262376$s8.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamcui1.18al.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><YHD99.275886$s8.50...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamfqkv.1fj9....@lievre.voute.net>
><9RV99.375858$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><i10imucu2ueo2vckc...@4ax.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030291218 51832146 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:i10imucu2ueo2vckc...@4ax.com...
thing that is incorrect about my statement is 'guilty' when it should
be 'liable.' Of course civil courts do not provide guilty/innocent
verdicts, nor can they rule on murder. Thus any claim that I
said 'murder conviction,' is just so much bullshit.
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> >>conviction in a civil court,' nor in any court. Nor can a 'murder
> >>conviction' be obtained in a civil court. Once again, you are
> >>simply LYING.
>
> > No he isn't.
> >
> > "Of course he was found guilty in a civil court"
> >
> > Just admit you were wrong, PV and move along...
>
> 'a conviction' ...
>
equate to anything. Nor does the correct 'found liable,' equate to
'found guilty of murder.' Nor does any of that equate to a 'murder
conviction.' Which is what YOU'VE claimed.
> Ho, ho ... this _is_ fun ...
What? No *snigger* You're still a liar, you know.
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 26/08/02 3:06 :
My bottom line remains
> In Europe, we have stepped out into the light.
From underneath your rock you can`t see the light.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B98FAC83.1FFA%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
Well, you've certainly proved the point I made, in response to
your comment, that you conveniently clipped again. Let me
repeat it --
"Isn't it ever possible that you could argue the
DP without presuming all who support it are 'evil'? Since
I do not presume all who oppose it are 'evil."
Apparently with your latest comment you are unable to argue
the DP without presuming all who support it are 'evil.'
PV
> Earl
>
>
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
>
<....>
>> >It is certainly 'thought out,' as well it should be. It is
'cold-blooded'
>> >only in the sense that it is done without emotion or excitement, ..
>>
>> Observation proves this statement plainly wrong. There are lots of
people
>> who use the legalized cruelty as a platform for to satisfy personal
hateful
>> feelings in a compensatory way.
>>
>Only some of those who oppose it.
<rest of the paragraph snipped>
This is simply not true, and you know it. There is a huge amount of
projected hatred in the death penalty in general and any execution in
particular. Go to any message board of any death row inmate and experience
your combattants' attitudes.
>>
>> >(although there is certainly an emotional aspect to it from the
>> >families and the murderer), as well it should be.
>>
>> So what now? Is the purpose of capital punishment the unemotional
protection
>> of society, as you are persistently claiming, or is it what your
statement
>> above implies, i.e. the symbolic outlawing of a handful of wrongdoers,
>> demonstrating power over life and death by fully deliberately playing out
>> the thoroughly emotional cards 'fear of death' and 'revenge'?
>>
>The APPLICATION must be in an unemotional context, or it
>becomes 'passion' and that is not the same as 'reason.' And we
>certainly expect to 'reason' when we sentence to the DP. Otherwise,
>it is no different than a lynch mob. And the DP is far from that, given
>the years between sentencing and execution.
No it isn't. The lynch mob is all there. Your shutting eyes and ears does
not make them vanish, though.
The PURPOSE is as
>I have stated all along. Society self-defense. And it is obvious in your
>'emotion' filled words, that you attempt to put other words in my mouth.
No I don't, as 'deserves' is part of your argument. Otherwise you'd argument
exclusively with 'continuing threat'.
>Since I see no 'symbolism' in it, other than the recognition of a society
>that it will not accept murder, just as society will not accept rape
>by providing a penalty for THAT crime. The only 'symbolism' is the
>fact that we create penalties for ALL crimes. Society has ALWAYS
>had 'power over life and death.'
Modern societies have undergone a process of self-restriction, and
voluntarily waivered the right to kill prisoners.
And has ALWAYS presumed that the
>INDIVIDUAL does not.
Despots holding absolutistic power have killed and are killing all along,
and claim the legal right to do so. This was so for millennia until some
essential ideas of freedom and legal equality have made their course.
Capital punishment is in contradiction especially to the latter principle.
<snip>
>> But it is certainly
>> >not done in the sense of being deliberately cruel... which is the
>> >difference.
>>
>> The death penalty in the United States Of America is fully deliberately,
>> intentionally and premediatedly cruel. The 'deserves'-argument is what
makes
>> the cruelty of death row and execution a declared aim.
>>
>Ho hum... here we go. It is deliberate -- and it should be. It is
intentional
>-- which has no meaning since all penalties are intentional, even those
>that convict the innocent. It is premeditated -- as it takes many years
>of due process to exact that penalty - as it should be. But it is
>not cruel.
It is cruel, and I wrote exactly why. The death penalty makes an instinctive
feeling unavoidable and uses it so for punishment and psychologic torture.
That's simply the mantra of some abolitionists. Quite
>clearly... cruelty does not enter into it, except in the examination of
>how cruel the cause (the murder) was to expect such a penalty.
You may try to relativate the cruelty of the DP by referring slogan-like to
the cruelties of individuals. This procedere however *proves* the point of
CP's cruelty rather than to nullify it.
.....Passion belongs to the murder and vigilante
>> >justice only.
>>
>> That official institutions have token in their hands what was done by
>> vigilants once is proof for exactly nothing.
>
>Quite untrue. It proves everything. We turn NO justice over to
>vigilante justice. And the justice we exact bears absolutely no
>resemblance to vigilante justice.
Nope. The movement of the punishing power to legislation, jurisdiction and
executive is the MINIMAL condition to prevent vigilante justice. This means
not yet that the criteria and motives to speak any sentences must
necessarily have changed.
>
>> The proof or disproof plays on
>> a total other stage, Sir.
>
>Perhaps you believe that is a neat turn of a phrase, but it is meaningless.
>The stage we play on, is life, not fantasy. We ALL play on that stage.
>
>> To see whether your statements hold any water or
>> not requires to analyze whether the spectrum of executed and condemned by
>> your system were distinctable via their crimes and culpability from not
>> death sentenced offenders.
>>
>Once again. You've failed to adequately communicate your thoughts.
>Because I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.
>And I do try hard to do so.
Simply wriggling out.
<previously discussed stuff snipped>
J.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:56:33 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:06:06 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>{ snip my spanking (oh boy, a gerund !! Did LDB do his homework ??!)
> LDB up and down the newsgroup ... }
>
>> Look who's obsessing? Have any proof of what you say?
>
>Only a google reference, where you say just that ... *snigger* ... that
>arse of yours must be _very_ sore ...
>
>{ snip LDB trying to deny what everyone saw him 'say' }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsfeed.news2me.c
om!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: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:56:33 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnamkqug.1g5.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><4dd99.88$sR7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><Fbl99.262376$s8.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamcui1.18al.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><YHD99.275886$s8.50...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamfqkv.1fj9....@lievre.voute.net>
><9RV99.375858$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamh5fm.1hbr....@lievre.voute.net>
><2afa9.298116$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030384885 51699503 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:50:49 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:11:36 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>{ snip }
>
>>> >> On behalf of Europe, may I offer our sincere condolences to any
>>> >> remaining relatives of these two innocents, slaughtered by the
>>> >> state, in what amounts to 'simple murder' ?
>
>>> { snip LDB screaming at his monitor again, 'that ****in' desi got me
>>> a good 'un, again !!! }
>
>> No, potty mouth... actually what I screamed was -
>
>'That fuckin' desi got me a good 'un, again !!!'
>
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsxfer.visi.net!nntp.flash.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-be
rlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:50:49 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 20
>Message-ID: <slrnamkqjo.1fg.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><slrnamahud.146p.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><zje99.254973$s8.48...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamcuhq.18al.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><YHD99.275885$s8.50...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030384343 51856402 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:akdrtc$ssa$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht
> <3afa9.298119$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >
>
> <....>
>
> >> >It is certainly 'thought out,' as well it should be. It is
> 'cold-blooded'
> >> >only in the sense that it is done without emotion or excitement, ..
> >>
> >> Observation proves this statement plainly wrong. There are lots of
> people
> >> who use the legalized cruelty as a platform for to satisfy personal
> hateful
> >> feelings in a compensatory way.
> >>
> >Only some of those who oppose it.
>
> <rest of the paragraph snipped>
>
> This is simply not true, and you know it. There is a huge amount of
> projected hatred in the death penalty in general and any execution in
> particular. Go to any message board of any death row inmate and experience
> your combattants' attitudes.
>
that comes from SOME abolitionists here. A rage directed
toward the SUPPORTER of the DP, rather than the murderer,
who is presumed to need our pity, and is called a 'victim,'
while the DP is called murder, making those who support
the DP, supporters of murder. Don't be naive. The closer one
gets to EXCUSING murder, the closer one gets to SUPPORTING
murder, IMHO.
> >>
> >> >(although there is certainly an emotional aspect to it from the
> >> >families and the murderer), as well it should be.
> >>
> >> So what now? Is the purpose of capital punishment the unemotional
> protection
> >> of society, as you are persistently claiming, or is it what your
> statement
> >> above implies, i.e. the symbolic outlawing of a handful of wrongdoers,
> >> demonstrating power over life and death by fully deliberately playing out
> >> the thoroughly emotional cards 'fear of death' and 'revenge'?
> >>
> >The APPLICATION must be in an unemotional context, or it
> >becomes 'passion' and that is not the same as 'reason.' And we
> >certainly expect to 'reason' when we sentence to the DP. Otherwise,
> >it is no different than a lynch mob. And the DP is far from that, given
> >the years between sentencing and execution.
>
> No it isn't. The lynch mob is all there. Your shutting eyes and ears does
> not make them vanish, though.
>
You have a very cockeyed view here, Jürgen. You cannot just
say that without proof, unless you state it as your opinion. Clearly
the only thing that I see, is a great deal of pious expressions of
pity (you've done it yourself) for murderers, and the implication that
those who support the DP are part of a 'lynch mob.' Just as YOU
now imply. Certainly YOU are part of the problem that I speak of.
An unreasoned identification of those who support the DP, with the
perception that we must be 'immoral' to do so, and consequently
'evil' to do so. When it is only justice and safety that is desired.
And you are only one of MANY from the abolitionist side, who
would blame the retentionist MORE than they would blame the
CAUSE of the DP, who is the murderer.
> >The PURPOSE is as
> >I have stated all along. Society self-defense. And it is obvious in your
> >'emotion' filled words, that you attempt to put other words in my mouth.
>
> No I don't, as 'deserves' is part of your argument. Otherwise you'd argument
> exclusively with 'continuing threat'.
>
Yes, you DO. Here's what you said about MY opinion -- "So what now?
Is the purpose of capital punishment the unemotional of society, as
you are persistently claiming, or is it what your statement
above implies, i.e. the symbolic outlawing of a handful of wrongdoers,
demonstrating power over life and death by fully deliberately playing out
the thoroughly emotional cards 'fear of death' and 'revenge'?"
I clearly stated the PURPOSE, and have done so all along. But you
then claim that I stated my PURPOSE as something else, and put
it in very emotionally destructive terms... words that I have NEVER
used. Where did I say "emotional cards 'fear of death' and 'revenge.'?
You just MANUFACTURED those words and tried to put them into my
mouth.
> >Since I see no 'symbolism' in it, other than the recognition of a society
> >that it will not accept murder, just as society will not accept rape
> >by providing a penalty for THAT crime. The only 'symbolism' is the
> >fact that we create penalties for ALL crimes. Society has ALWAYS
> >had 'power over life and death.'
>
> Modern societies have undergone a process of self-restriction, and
> voluntarily waivered the right to kill prisoners.
>
Having nothing to do with my comment. And clearly you are
again presuming that the course Europe has taken is both
'modern' and correct. One could argue the opposite quite
readily. But the truth is I don't CARE what Europe does. It
is YOUR problem, not mine. Nor do I find Europe's approach
qualifies to be called 'modern,' since I do not believe we make
ourselves 'better' by insuring ALL murderers die a natural death,
given the fact that many murderers clearly murder again when
we give them such an opportunity, and we can hardly, IMHO,
call ourselves 'moral' simply because we keep murderers alive.
'morality' runs much deeper than that, in my opinion.
> >And has ALWAYS presumed that the
> >INDIVIDUAL does not.
>
> Despots holding absolutistic power have killed and are killing all along,
> and claim the legal right to do so.
So have ALL societies. Again, you are trying to put a square peg
into a round hole. The U.S. is not a despotic society, and ALL
societies claim the legal right to kill in certain instances. Just
because they abolish the DP, they do not remove the right to
kill in self-defense, or in a law enforcement action during the
commission of a crime, or the enemy in time of war.
> This was so for millennia until some
> essential ideas of freedom and legal equality have made their course.
> Capital punishment is in contradiction especially to the latter principle.
>
Hardly. Capital punishment is a recognition of the danger of some
members to other members. You may find it unnecessary. Your
entire continent may find it unnecessary. But do not try to
REDEFINE what is implied in its PURPOSE.
> <snip>
>
> >> But it is certainly
> >> >not done in the sense of being deliberately cruel... which is the
> >> >difference.
> >>
> >> The death penalty in the United States Of America is fully deliberately,
> >> intentionally and premediatedly cruel. The 'deserves'-argument is what
> makes
> >> the cruelty of death row and execution a declared aim.
> >>
> >Ho hum... here we go. It is deliberate -- and it should be. It is
> > intentional
> >-- which has no meaning since all penalties are intentional, even those
> >that convict the innocent. It is premeditated -- as it takes many years
> >of due process to exact that penalty - as it should be. But it is
> >not cruel.
>
> It is cruel, and I wrote exactly why. The death penalty makes an instinctive
> feeling unavoidable and uses it so for punishment and psychologic torture.
>
No. It is 'cruel' because you wish to SEE it as cruel. No other
reason except your OPINION finds it cruel. It is of course, used
for punishment, that is certainly one aspect. As is its use to
provide absolute incapacitation. But that psychological torture
is just more of your 'brutalization' bullshit, and we've been up and
down that road. There is LESS psychological torture to the DP,
than we could EVER provided in TRUE L wop. And further, there
is less possibility of making a mistake because of the heightened
due process afforded to that penalty.
> >That's simply the mantra of some abolitionists. Quite
> >clearly... cruelty does not enter into it, except in the examination of
> >how cruel the cause (the murder) was to expect such a penalty.
>
> You may try to relativate the cruelty of the DP by referring slogan-like to
> the cruelties of individuals. This procedere however *proves* the point of
> CP's cruelty rather than to nullify it.
>
The DP is no more 'cruel' than ANY penalty for a crime. Every penalty
deprives someone of some portion of their freedom.
> .....Passion belongs to the murder and vigilante
> >> >justice only.
> >>
> >> That official institutions have token in their hands what was done by
> >> vigilants once is proof for exactly nothing.
> >
> >Quite untrue. It proves everything. We turn NO justice over to
> >vigilante justice. And the justice we exact bears absolutely no
> >resemblance to vigilante justice.
>
> Nope. The movement of the punishing power to legislation, jurisdiction and
> executive is the MINIMAL condition to prevent vigilante justice. This means
> not yet that the criteria and motives to speak any sentences must
> necessarily have changed.
>
Oh... God, I get so frustrated with you, when you begin spouting
those emotional 'slogans.' Your 'argument' presumes that the
ENTIRE Justice System is so afflicted. You may well hold to
that argument, but you should realize that in your words NOTHING
implies any difference in the sentences. You have condemned
ALL sentences in your words, since you say 'any' sentences, yet
we are speaking of the DP.
> >
> >> The proof or disproof plays on
> >> a total other stage, Sir.
> >
> >Perhaps you believe that is a neat turn of a phrase, but it is meaningless.
> >The stage we play on, is life, not fantasy. We ALL play on that stage.
> >
> >> To see whether your statements hold any water or
> >> not requires to analyze whether the spectrum of executed and condemned by
> >> your system were distinctable via their crimes and culpability from not
> >> death sentenced offenders.
> >>
> >Once again. You've failed to adequately communicate your thoughts.
> >Because I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.
> >And I do try hard to do so.
>
> Simply wriggling out.
>
Not at all. I have read it again, very closely. And still cannot make
out the slightest idea of what you are trying to say. Except a few
words such as 'spectrum,' 'executed,' 'condemned,' crimes,' 'culpability,'
and 'death sentenced offenders.' The connection of an IDEA to those
words in your structure DOES NOT EXIST. Try again.
> <previously discussed stuff snipped>
PV
>
> J.
>
>
>
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 26/08/02 20:19 :
> Well, you've certainly proved the point I made, in response to
> your comment, that you conveniently clipped again.
Many don't respond, you are too verbose.
The question is whether anybody else reads these one-on-one communications?
If not, exchanging comments with you is my form of entertainment. When I
am no longer amused I stop.
I stopped.
Earl
Earl Evleth
Coughlan à pasdespa...@zeouane.org a écrit le 27/08/02 11:48 :
> He wraps his content-free posts in around
> 50 kB of verbiage,
With PV, it is a form of masturbation, self-pleasuring. He feels fulfilled
in writing his stuff, does not care if anybody reads it.
Earl
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
.... There are lots of people
>> >> who use the legalized cruelty as a platform for to satisfy personal
>> hateful
>> >> feelings in a compensatory way.
>> >>
>> >Only some of those who oppose it.
>>
>> <rest of the paragraph snipped>
>>
>> This is simply not true, and you know it. There is a huge amount of
>> projected hatred in the death penalty in general and any execution in
>> particular. Go to any message board of any death row inmate and
experience
>> your combattants' attitudes.
>>
>ROTFLMAO... Just go to THIS newsgroup and find the RAGE
>that comes from SOME abolitionists here.
Has that even anything to do with my establishment?
Again:
There is a huge amount of projected hatred in the death penalty in general
and any execution in particular. Go to any message board of any death row
inmate and experience your combattants' attitudes.
<....>
>> >The APPLICATION must be in an unemotional context, or it
>> >becomes 'passion' and that is not the same as 'reason.' And we
>> >certainly expect to 'reason' when we sentence to the DP. Otherwise,
>> >it is no different than a lynch mob. And the DP is far from that, given
>> >the years between sentencing and execution.
>>
>> No it isn't. The lynch mob is all there. Your shutting eyes and ears does
>> not make them vanish, though.
>>
>You have a very cockeyed view here, Jürgen. You cannot just
>say that without proof, unless you state it as your opinion.
I had the doubtful pleasure to experience the lynch mob myself, Sir. There
*IS* *FACTUAL* *PROOF* for lots of guys who are prepared for violent
measures against anyone who would dare disturbing their sick
execution-phantasies, regardless whether there are speaking considerable
facts against their imaginations or not.
Clearly
>the only thing that I see, is a great deal of pious expressions of
>pity (you've done it yourself) for murderers, and the implication that
>those who support the DP are part of a 'lynch mob.' Just as YOU
>now imply. Certainly YOU are part of the problem that I speak of.
>An unreasoned identification of those who support the DP, with the
>perception that we must be 'immoral' to do so,....
"We"? Do you really like to associate yourself with the guys I speak of?
Then certainly YOU are part of the problem.
....Society has ALWAYS
>> >had 'power over life and death.'
>>
>> Modern societies have undergone a process of self-restriction, and
>> voluntarily waivered the right to kill prisoners.
>>
>Having nothing to do with my comment.
Of course it has.
..... This was so for millennia until some
>> essential ideas of freedom and legal equality have made their course.
>> Capital punishment is in contradiction especially to the latter
principle.
>>
>Hardly. Capital punishment is a recognition of the danger of some
>members to other members. You may find it unnecessary. Your
>entire continent may find it unnecessary. But do not try to
>REDEFINE what is implied in its PURPOSE.
You yet failed to provide any meaningful support for the claimed purpose of
capital punishment in the US. Zero criteria for an 'aggravated continuing
threat', zero criteria for 'deserves', and just so appears the composition
of death rows. A scapegoating against a capricious selection of guilties,
who have one property in common: They are any single one easy targets to
bash on. They are guilty of a homicidal crime, so the lot of you guys are
satisfied with a death sentence whatever the circumstances of the crime
might have been.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> But it is certainly
>> >> >not done in the sense of being deliberately cruel... which is the
>> >> >difference.
>> >>
>> >> The death penalty in the United States Of America is fully
deliberately,
>> >> intentionally and premediatedly cruel. The 'deserves'-argument is what
>> makes
>> >> the cruelty of death row and execution a declared aim.
>> >>
>> >Ho hum... here we go. It is deliberate -- and it should be. It is
>> > intentional
>> >-- which has no meaning since all penalties are intentional, even those
>> >that convict the innocent. It is premeditated -- as it takes many years
>> >of due process to exact that penalty - as it should be. But it is
>> >not cruel.
>>
>> It is cruel, and I wrote exactly why. The death penalty makes an
instinctive
>> feeling unavoidable and uses it so for punishment and psychologic
torture.
>>
>No. It is 'cruel' because you wish to SEE it as cruel. No other
>reason except your OPINION finds it cruel.
It is OBVIOUS that the death penalty is cruel.
It is of course, used
>for punishment, that is certainly one aspect. As is its use to
>provide absolute incapacitation. But that psychological torture
>is just more of your 'brutalization' bullshit, and we've been up and
>down that road.
...and we will walk that road up and down, down and up. Death row and death
penalty are abusing and alienating for punishing purposes a feeling and
state of mind which is originally meant to be a life's safeguard. An
extremely gruesome form of imprisonment is premediatedly and intentionally
eternalizing and aggravating the condemned's fear.
There is LESS psychological torture to the DP,
>than we could EVER provided in TRUE L wop.
Because you say so, I suppose. You are very quick in declaring the life of a
prisoner worthless, because he is in prison and as long as he is in prison.
And further, there
>is less possibility of making a mistake because of the heightened
>due process afforded to that penalty.
Nope. See Earl's post about a release after 17 years.
>
>> >That's simply the mantra of some abolitionists. Quite
>> >clearly... cruelty does not enter into it, except in the examination of
>> >how cruel the cause (the murder) was to expect such a penalty.
>>
>> You may try to relativate the cruelty of the DP by referring slogan-like
to
>> the cruelties of individuals. This procedere however *proves* the point
of
>> CP's cruelty rather than to nullify it.
>>
>The DP is no more 'cruel' than ANY penalty for a crime. Every penalty
>deprives someone of some portion of their freedom.
"Some portion of their freedom" is and remains another quality than to deny
the right to live. Death row is a psychologically lingering death, for many,
many years. Full Stop.
<ssssnip>
>> >> To see whether your statements hold any water or
>> >> not requires to analyze whether the spectrum of executed and condemned
by
>> >> your system were distinctable via their crimes and culpability from
not
>> >> death sentenced offenders.
>> >>
>> >Once again. You've failed to adequately communicate your thoughts.
>> >Because I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.
>> >And I do try hard to do so.
>>
>> Simply wriggling out.
>>
>Not at all. I have read it again, very closely. And still cannot make
>out the slightest idea of what you are trying to say.
OK, after you hold an advanced command of my language according to yourself
a translation:
Eine Erkenntnis ob Ihre Thesen einen verifizierbaren Gehalt aufweisen oder
nicht erfordert eine kritische Betrachtung, ob die von Ihrem System zum Tode
Verurteilten und Hingerichteten bezüglich ihrer Verbrechen und ihrer
Schuldfähigkeit von anderen, nicht zum Tode Verurteilten, unterscheidbar
wären.
Except a few
>words such as 'spectrum,' 'executed,' 'condemned,' crimes,' 'culpability,'
>and 'death sentenced offenders.' The connection of an IDEA to those
>words in your structure DOES NOT EXIST. Try again.
>
Your problem with understanding the phrase may well find its origin and
reason in your refusal to concern with the meaning of the terms,
particularly of 'culpability'.
J.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:48:21 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:38:13 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit
>:
>
>>> Well, you've certainly proved the point I made, in response to
>>> your comment, that you conveniently clipped again.
>
>> Many don't respond, you are too verbose.
>
>Which of course is his aim. He wraps his content-free posts in around
>50 kB of verbiage, hoping that few will bother to trawl through it, to
>find anything of worth. It very often works. Just as well, really, as
>there is rarely anything other than 'ROTFLMAO', 'You're sick', 'You're
>evil', 'What a moron', 'I spanked you, nyar! nyar!', or 'desi's evil
>and wotten to me !'
>
>Guaranteed, 100% content-free, low on carbohydrates, high in sodium and
>hot air.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- 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!news-feed1.de1.concer
t.net!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: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:48:21 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <slrnammin4.3lu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><4dd99.89$aQ7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><B98BAC7D.193D%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D6620F1...@hotmail.com>
><B98C007C.1A34%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66452D...@hotmail.com>
><B98C1388.1A3B%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com>
><B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B98EA0DA.1EFD%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><2afa9.298118$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B98FAC83.1FFA%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><xiua9.312659$s8.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B990F904.21DB%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030441784 51669907 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:44:26 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:26:04 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit
>:
>
>>> He wraps his content-free posts in around
>>> 50 kB of verbiage,
>
>> With PV, it is a form of masturbation, self-pleasuring. He feels fulfilled
>> in writing his stuff, does not care if anybody reads it.
>
>Earl, as I read your words, it is 12h44 here in Paris. I _was_ about to
>go for lunch, but ... erm ... suddenly, I've lost my appetite ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!howland.erols.net!fu-berl
in.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:44:26 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnammm0a.3s9.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><4dd99.89$aQ7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><B98BAC7D.193D%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D6620F1...@hotmail.com>
><B98C007C.1A34%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66452D...@hotmail.com>
><B98C1388.1A3B%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com>
><B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B98EA0DA.1EFD%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><2afa9.298118$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B98FAC83.1FFA%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><xiua9.312659$s8.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B990F904.21DB%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><slrnammin4.3lu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><B991205C.2341%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030445150 52951454 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B990F904.21DB%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> dans l'article xiua9.312659$s8.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 26/08/02 20:19 :
>
> > Well, you've certainly proved the point I made, in response to
> > your comment, that you conveniently clipped again.
>
> Many don't respond, you are too verbose.
>
to one-liners.'? Obviously, you do. Since I spent some time
trying to dissect what exact IS your view on an abolitionist,
and you gave it no 'thought' whatsoever. So you're simply here
to troll, post meaningless articles from others, and make a
general pompous and vain fool of yourself.
> The question is whether anybody else reads these one-on-one communications?
> If not, exchanging comments with you is my form of entertainment. When I
> am no longer amused I stop.
>
In other words, the DP is an 'amusement' to you? Well, it was
what I suspected all along. You're simply here to preen yourself
in front of a particular group, and pretend that you are 'moral,'
because you hold murderers in such high esteem, and contend
that ALL those who don't have a 'corroded soul.' Since you have
failed to define a retentionist that you would accept does not
have such a 'corroded soul.' And certainly hoped to wiggle your
way deceptively out of the simple question. The identification of
you as a 'Tokyo Rose' to all things American was one of the
most puissant insights ever provided in this group. It fits you
perfectly, and you actually HAVE no argument vis-a-vis the DP
in the U.S. It is simply a reflection of your hate for your motherland.
Once again, what constitutes a view of a retentionist that you
would accept is not 'immoral'? And what specific VALUES are
they?
> I stopped.
>
You never 'started,' Earl. Your argument has never contained
anything of value, other than a hysterical claim that you visit
murderers and find them attractive.
PV
> Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:38:13 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit :
>
> >> Well, you've certainly proved the point I made, in response to
> >> your comment, that you conveniently clipped again.
>
> > Many don't respond, you are too verbose.
>
> 50 kB of verbiage, hoping that few will bother to trawl through it, to
> find anything of worth. It very often works. Just as well, really, as
> there is rarely anything other than 'ROTFLMAO', 'You're sick', 'You're
> evil', 'What a moron', 'I spanked you, nyar! nyar!', or 'desi's evil
> and wotten to me !'
>
> Guaranteed, 100% content-free, low on carbohydrates, high in sodium and
> hot air.
>
those who support the DP are 'deathies,' and families and mothers
of murder victims are 'perverse.' Quite an insightful argument. And
full of 'content.' Although all of it stinks to high heaven.
Not to mention the literally dozens of examples where he has stepped
on his own dick in what have become rather famously referred to
as desi's SODS (Step on dick specials). A recent case being his
inability to see that the judge in the Louise Woodward trial could
most certainly have vacated the verdict if he felt it appropriate to do
so, since the defense had requested him to do just that.
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B991205C.2341%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
who is a retentionist you believe is not 'immoral' or have a 'corroded
soul'? And what particular VALUE other than the ones that I've
expressed cause you to see it that way? Not a difficult question.
PV
> Earl
>
>
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 28/08/02 4:57 :
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:B990F904.21DB%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> dans l'article xiua9.312659$s8.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
>> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 26/08/02 20:19 :
>>
>>> Well, you've certainly proved the point I made, in response to
>>> your comment, that you conveniently clipped again.
Creative clipping is to clipping what creative accounting is to
accounting. Actually, in your case the bullshit is removed.
My "crime" for humanity. Cutting your stuff reduces their
rediffusion and resulting information pollution.
> In other words, the DP is an 'amusement' to you?
No, but you definitely are.
>> I stopped.
>>
> You never 'started,' Earl.
Shows my good sense. Basically, your comments
are not worth responding to, note that I respond more
to others.
Earl
Just passing by
A recent case being his
> inability to see that the judge in the Louise Woodward trial could
> most certainly have vacated the verdict if he felt it appropriate to do
> so, since the defense had requested him to do just that.
>
No so fast, PV. You are wrong yet again, I'm afraid, as you will see
from my reply to your short lived and totally unjustified gloating in
the thread in question.
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02082...@posting.google.com...
claim they CANNOT do, and the judge RULES on that motion, and
you say he CANNOT rule on that motion. What a moron. Of course
Rule 25 (b) (2), did not apply. But look at the ruling of Judge
Zobel -- The defense made the motion, independent of any rule 25(b)(2).
See http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.ruling/
Section 2, was the defense "Motion for a Required Finding of Not
Guilty." This was completely separate from any examination of
rule 25(b)(2). And it was examined and ruled on with -- "Measuring
the evidence by this strict standard, my duty inescapably mandates
my denying the motion in its entirety." You are perhaps confusing
the meaning of 'could have,' since he certainly COULD HAVE.
Whatever the CONSEQUENCES you might dream up in reference
to that motion are totally immaterial. He COULD HAVE ruled FOR
a Required Finding of Not Guilty. Which is what you said he
COULD NOT do. Certainly that 'ruling' might have been challenged,
but there is no question that he could RULE on the motion.
Rule 25 (b) (2), enters into this argument ONLY in respect to the
defense motion in Section 4 -- "Motion to Reduce Verdict." This
is clearly shown in the words of the ruling, where the judge states
"In seeking a directed acquittal or a new trial, Defendant
argued that the evidence as to causation so strongly raised a
reasonable doubt as to liability for Matthew Eappen's death that
the conviction could not stand. Now Defendant urges a reduced
assessment of her culpability, relying upon Massachusetts Rule of
Criminal Procedure 25(b)(2)"
The motions to Direct a Finding of Not Guilty, or order a new trial,
are completely separate for Rule 25 (b)(2). And NOTHING in
that rule would state that the judge COULD NOT find in favor
of the motions of the defense raised in Sections 2 and 3.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B99244AB.24B1%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> dans l'article X_Wa9.323667$s8.57...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 28/08/02 4:57 :
>
>
> > "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> > news:B990F904.21DB%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >> dans l'article xiua9.312659$s8.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> >> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 26/08/02 20:19 :
> >>
> >>> Well, you've certainly proved the point I made, in response to
> >>> your comment, that you conveniently clipped again.
>
> Creative clipping is to clipping what creative accounting is to
> accounting. Actually, in your case the bullshit is removed.
> My "crime" for humanity. Cutting your stuff reduces their
> rediffusion and resulting information pollution.
>
cannot answer by using 'creative clipping.' I thought so.
> > In other words, the DP is an 'amusement' to you?
>
> No, but you definitely are.
I think not. I think you're VERY AFRAID of me, old man.
> >> I stopped.
> >>
> > You never 'started,' Earl.
>
> Shows my good sense. Basically, your comments
> are not worth responding to, note that I respond more
> to others.
>
Because they are 'easier,' Earl. Have no doubt about it.
You don't respond to me, because you are UNABLE to
do so. Not because you choose to not do so. You're
afraid to do so. A simple question -- the name of ONE
retentionist here, who you believe is not 'immoral' in
supporting the DP, and what particular value that retentionist
displays in respect to the DP, that makes his view 'moral'
and mine 'immoral.'
Otherwise, we must conclude that your 'argument' (sic)
opposed to the DP, is based on hypocrisy and a bigoted
view of ALL who support that penalty.
PV
> Earl
>
>
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 29/08/02 4:25 :
>> No, but you definitely are.
>
> I think not. I think you're VERY AFRAID of me, old man.
!!! Another revealing statement from our NG's paranoid.
If I were afraid of you or anybody else, why would I use
my real name, which leads any potentially dangerous person
to my door in Paris?
On the other hand your behavior, lack of identity, indicates your fears,
even in claiming that I am afraid of you. I suspect you look around you
when you go out, is there somebody following? What is that man in the
car parked down the street doing. Did somebody find out my real
identity and address? Quiver on.
I will remain standing tall, you can now slither back under your rock
and hide.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B9939F71.29D7%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> dans l'article dCfb9.11560$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 29/08/02 4:25 :
>
> >> No, but you definitely are.
> >
> > I think not. I think you're VERY AFRAID of me, old man.
>
>
> !!! Another revealing statement from our NG's paranoid.
>
> If I were afraid of you or anybody else, why would I use
> my real name, which leads any potentially dangerous person
> to my door in Paris?
>
have already stated you avoid it, yet find yourself compelled to
offer petty little remarks.
> On the other hand your behavior, lack of identity, indicates your fears,
> even in claiming that I am afraid of you. I suspect you look around you
> when you go out, is there somebody following? What is that man in the
> car parked down the street doing. Did somebody find out my real
> identity and address? Quiver on.
>
ROTFLMAO. Seriously, Earl. We have GUNS in the U.S. I have a
gun. In any case, you will find that I am never 'afraid' of any question
or remark you pose here. But you most certainly are 'afraid' to answer
a rather simple question I posed. So let me repeat it -- Since in
your doddering old-age your memory often fails you --
"Let's look at this with a question to you - 'Do you consider
all who support the DP to an extent are 'underneath the rock,'
that you speak of? Does that make them all 'evil,' and possessed
of a 'corroded soul'?
Now presuming you do not feel that way, could you offer the
name of someone who SUPPORTS the DP that you feel is not
'possessed of a corroded soul'? And then given the facts that
a) I believe with better identification within our Justice
System, we could dramatically decrease the number of
proven murderers we find it necessary to execute,
while still providing the same degree of public safety.
b) I do not support the execution of ANYONE other than a
proven murderer
c) I do not support the execution of someone retarded or
insane
d) I do not support the execution of someone where
'aggravating circumstances,' are not conclusively proven.
e) I do not support the execution of someone under the age
of 18 at the time of the murder
f) I do not support the execution of those who murder in passion,
or drunkenness, or family quarrel, or depression or without clear
intent to murder before doing so
g) I do not support L wop as an alternative to the DP. Fully
believing the entire concept of L wop is certainly more flawed
than the DP, and in my mind certainly less 'moral.' For a
number of obvious reasons.
h) I support, for those murderers not executed, sentences
which are 'open-ended' with a minimum, and then close
examination at frequent intervals. This may result in
release if progress is shown, or may very well result in
never being released, but depending on the progress of
the murderer, more than anything else.
i) I fully support the due process we now provide to those
sentenced to the DP
j) I fully accept that 'finding of guilty' in all trials, is not
a perfect process.
k) I fully accept that Europe does not need the DP
l) I fully accept that INDIVIDUALS outside of the U.S. society
have a right to express an opinion concerning the use of the
U.S. DP, while I in turn have a right to argue against those
opinions.
m) Given those considerations, I consider myself to be a
'selective retentionist.' I maintain, in my opinion, that the
DP serves a purpose, and the only conceivable argument
against it, does not rest on a 'moral' foundation. I believe
the CONCEPT is quite distinct from the Justice System, which
must ALWAYS be examined and tweaked when seen
necessary to do so. I believe it makes no more sense to abolish
the DP in the U.S. than it would to abolish 20 year
sentences.
n) I fully recognize the danger and the possibility of the execution
of an innocent
o) I realize that disenfranchisement of an entire race in the U.S.
leads to a tremendous increase in violence
Then given those facts, exactly what sets ME apart from another
retentionist in respect to MY 'corroded soul,' other than the fact I
have shown you to be a fool on a great number of occasions?
Because THAT'S what's really at the heart of it, Earl. You can't
stand ME, because my ARGUMENT gives pause to those who
would dreamily accept your premise that ALL who find value in the
DP must be 'wrong' to do so. And being 'wrong' must also thus
be 'immoral' in the sense of 'wrong,' and thus have a 'corroded soul.'
Your argument in respect to the DP (and a great many other things),
is so flimsy that it crumbles when closely examined. And you
HATE to have it closely examined, which is what I intend to do.
Thus, by extension, it becomes necessary for you to contend 'I'
have that 'corroded soul' in order for your argument to make sense.
So give me the name of that retentionist, if one exists in your
mind, so we might compare values. Understand I need no name
of someone you feel is an 'Uncle Tom' to your position. This is
an argument about LIFE and DEATH, and 'delicacy' in presentation
has no meaning. And I would like you to say WHICH of the values
I speak of is founded in better values by the retentionist you see.
I speak of VALUES which are expressed in support of the DP that
you accept as values - which have some meaning - and what
specifically you feel those values are - of the one you feel is a
retentionist, without a 'corroded soul.' Making them 'better' than
mine."
> I will remain standing tall, you can now slither back under your rock
> and hide.
No, you won't 'remain standing tall.' You will remain 'under YOUR
rock,' unable to answer a simple and fundamental question regarding
how you view ALL retentionists.
PV
> Earl
>
>
>
>
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 29/08/02 16:37 :
>
> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:B9939F71.29D7%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
>> dans l'article dCfb9.11560$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
>> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 29/08/02 4:25 :
>>
>>>> No, but you definitely are.
>>>
>>> I think not. I think you're VERY AFRAID of me, old man.
>>
>>
>> !!! Another revealing statement from our NG's paranoid.
>>
>> If I were afraid of you or anybody else, why would I use
>> my real name, which leads any potentially dangerous person
>> to my door in Paris?
>>
> Not 'physically,' you nitwit. Afraid of my argument.
Again, !!!!. What argument? You don't argue, you merely
excrete.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:akgagm$pnu$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
> .... There are lots of people
>
> >> >> who use the legalized cruelty as a platform for to satisfy personal
> >> hateful
> >> >> feelings in a compensatory way.
> >> >>
> >> >Only some of those who oppose it.
> >>
> >> <rest of the paragraph snipped>
> >>
> >> This is simply not true, and you know it. There is a huge amount of
> >> projected hatred in the death penalty in general and any execution in
> >> particular. Go to any message board of any death row inmate and
> experience
> >> your combattants' attitudes.
> >>
> >ROTFLMAO... Just go to THIS newsgroup and find the RAGE
> >that comes from SOME abolitionists here.
>
> Has that even anything to do with my establishment?
> Again:
> There is a huge amount of projected hatred in the death penalty in general
> and any execution in particular. Go to any message board of any death row
> inmate and experience your combattants' attitudes.
>
to the DP against those who support it. It is irrational to believe
you can find any 'fact' from examining those who CORRESPOND
with murderer. Of course, THEY hold 'hate.' That's WHY they
'correspond' with murderers. They either hate them, or are in
love with them. It's a cross-section that bears no resemblance
to a rational segment of society.
> <....>
>
> >> >The APPLICATION must be in an unemotional context, or it
> >> >becomes 'passion' and that is not the same as 'reason.' And we
> >> >certainly expect to 'reason' when we sentence to the DP. Otherwise,
> >> >it is no different than a lynch mob. And the DP is far from that, given
> >> >the years between sentencing and execution.
> >>
> >> No it isn't. The lynch mob is all there. Your shutting eyes and ears does
> >> not make them vanish, though.
> >>
> >You have a very cockeyed view here, Jürgen. You cannot just
> >say that without proof, unless you state it as your opinion.
>
> I had the doubtful pleasure to experience the lynch mob myself, Sir. There
> *IS* *FACTUAL* *PROOF* for lots of guys who are prepared for violent
> measures against anyone who would dare disturbing their sick
> execution-phantasies, regardless whether there are speaking considerable
> facts against their imaginations or not.
>
What the hell are you talking about? If there is ANY ONE PERSON
in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
certainly PV. Even more than Sharp, and Don Kool, since they
have retired a bit. When was the last time YOU were called a
pedophile, or had YOUR handle forged, or had web sites created
with disgusting images portraying you? And I welcome that fact,
since I have hopefully stirred some measure of emotion, and maybe
made people THINK about their feelings. And perhaps even begin
to understand that much of it comes from an emotional well of
hoping to APPEAR 'moral.' I don't give a shit if they CHANGE
their view or not. As long as I can express MINE. So don't tell
me about YOUR 'doubtful pleasure.' I've had my own.. several
magnitudes more than you.
> >Clearly
> >the only thing that I see, is a great deal of pious expressions of
> >pity (you've done it yourself) for murderers, and the implication that
> >those who support the DP are part of a 'lynch mob.' Just as YOU
> >now imply. Certainly YOU are part of the problem that I speak of.
> >An unreasoned identification of those who support the DP, with the
> >perception that we must be 'immoral' to do so,....
>
> "We"? Do you really like to associate yourself with the guys I speak of?
> Then certainly YOU are part of the problem.
>
Clearly, 'we' have been accused of having a 'corroded soul' by one who
other abolitionists believe has 'something to say.' I do NOT associate
myself with retentionists who communicate with murderers. I have
made that perfectly clear in many posts. They become non-persons
to me when they murder. At that point they belong to society to deal
with. Do I 'hate' someone in respect the act of murder they committed?
You can 'bet your booty' I do. Because I 'hate' murder as well, and
THEY have caused what I 'hate.' But if you believe that in any way,
translates into 'hating' those who support abolition, you've lost your
mind. While I clearly see many who support abolition, 'hate' those
who support the DP. It is quite different to 'hate' a murderer, and
'hate' someone who is either for or against the DP.
> ....Society has ALWAYS
>
> >> >had 'power over life and death.'
> >>
> >> Modern societies have undergone a process of self-restriction, and
> >> voluntarily waivered the right to kill prisoners.
> >>
> >Having nothing to do with my comment.
>
> Of course it has.
>
No... actually.. it doesn't.
> ..... This was so for millennia until some
> >> essential ideas of freedom and legal equality have made their course.
> >> Capital punishment is in contradiction especially to the latter
> principle.
> >>
> >Hardly. Capital punishment is a recognition of the danger of some
> >members to other members. You may find it unnecessary. Your
> >entire continent may find it unnecessary. But do not try to
> >REDEFINE what is implied in its PURPOSE.
>
> You yet failed to provide any meaningful support for the claimed purpose of
> capital punishment in the US.
My 'list,' Jürgen... my list. The 'purpose' of the DP is to SAVE
INNOCENT LIVES. Obviously, we must trade off the possibility
of executing an innocent and the possibility of a murderer we do
not execute murdering again. Jesus... how can you STILL not
understand my 'purpose' in support of the DP?
> Zero criteria for an 'aggravated continuing
> threat', zero criteria for 'deserves', and just so appears the composition
> of death rows. A scapegoating against a capricious selection of guilties,
> who have one property in common: They are any single one easy targets to
> bash on. They are guilty of a homicidal crime, so the lot of you guys are
> satisfied with a death sentence whatever the circumstances of the crime
> might have been.
>
Whatever are you talking about? You continue to 'make-up' these
imaginary conclusions, and throw them about as if they represent
some sort of 'fact.' It's all bullshit. Look at my LIST.. for ACTUALITY.
Yet you would STILL deny that those on that list FINALLY 'deserve'
execution and have POSITIVELY shown that rehabilitation is
IMPOSSIBLE. Yet you'd hope to keep them alive, so they might
try yet again to murder another innocent either in or out of prison.
Someone under a sentence of L wop, in a State that does not HAVE
the DP, may murder at will, with the clear understanding that they
CANNOT be punished any more than they already are BEING
punished.
> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> But it is certainly
> >> >> >not done in the sense of being deliberately cruel... which is the
> >> >> >difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> The death penalty in the United States Of America is fully
> deliberately,
> >> >> intentionally and premediatedly cruel. The 'deserves'-argument is what
> >> makes
> >> >> the cruelty of death row and execution a declared aim.
> >> >>
> >> >Ho hum... here we go. It is deliberate -- and it should be. It is
> >> > intentional
> >> >-- which has no meaning since all penalties are intentional, even those
> >> >that convict the innocent. It is premeditated -- as it takes many years
> >> >of due process to exact that penalty - as it should be. But it is
> >> >not cruel.
> >>
> >> It is cruel, and I wrote exactly why. The death penalty makes an
> instinctive
> >> feeling unavoidable and uses it so for punishment and psychologic
> torture.
> >>
> >No. It is 'cruel' because you wish to SEE it as cruel. No other
> >reason except your OPINION finds it cruel.
>
> It is OBVIOUS that the death penalty is cruel.
It is OBVIOUS that ALL penalties are 'cruel.' If you wish to
'play' that game. You can no more reject the DP as 'cruel,' then
you can reject imprisonment for a crime as 'cruel.' And the
Supreme Court has already determined that it is NOT 'cruel
AND unusual,' since the words are NOT 'cruel OR unusual.'
In sentences to prison, temporary incapacitation can be seen
as 'cruel' if one WISHES to see it that way. One can see ANYTHING
as 'cruel' if one wishes to do so. Do you believe murder is
'cruel'? More 'cruel' than the DP? Of course you don't. You
follow the line of FDP. So 'cruel' is simply how YOU perceive
it. Not as how EVERYONE MUST perceive it.
> >It is of course, used
> >for punishment, that is certainly one aspect. As is its use to
> >provide absolute incapacitation. But that psychological torture
> >is just more of your 'brutalization' bullshit, and we've been up and
> >down that road.
>
> ...and we will walk that road up and down, down and up. Death row and death
> penalty are abusing and alienating for punishing purposes a feeling and
> state of mind which is originally meant to be a life's safeguard. An
> extremely gruesome form of imprisonment is premediatedly and intentionally
> eternalizing and aggravating the condemned's fear.
>
la de da... Once again, simply more of your emotional claptrap.
I disagree with every word. Although your last sentence could well
apply to L wop, to a larger extent than the DP.
>
> >There is LESS psychological torture to the DP,
> >than we could EVER provided in TRUE L wop.
>
> Because you say so, I suppose. You are very quick in declaring the life of a
> prisoner worthless, because he is in prison and as long as he is in prison.
>
I notice that you have a few things that you 'believe' are fact,
but are simply your 'opinion.' My words, were of course MY
OPINION. Since I can NEVER get inside the head of a
murderer. But it's rather obvious that they would be hysterical
when facing imminent (like desi 'death holds no fear for me'
Coughlan.. they might even crap their pants). So the
psychological torture you speak of may simply be their
grasping for pity (which you seem only too happy to extend).
One can go to those message boards for DR inmates and
see that they are very clearly looking for 'sympathy.' In fact,
I pointed out one particular murderer, who murdered his
third wife, and while in prison met another woman in a chat
room, became her pen-pal, and eventually married her.
After his release... guess what? He murdered HER, along
with mother, and another woman he had just met the previous
day. And guess what, again? He is now in prison and
LOOKING for another pen-pal, with the message --
"Jewish Death Row inmate, white, 51 years old, seeking
understanding and open female or male for honest correspondence.
Amateur poet, artist. Will answer all correspondence received.
PHILLIP JABLONSKI, C-02477/SE95, San Quentin, CA 94974"
And certainly, the very concept of L wop, every bit as much as
the DP PRESUMES the murderer's life is 'worthless.' We only
keep them alive, so that WE might feel 'good' about ourselves,
and our 'presumed' morality for doing so. Of course... IMHO.
> >And further, there
> >is less possibility of making a mistake because of the heightened
> >due process afforded to that penalty.
>
> Nope. See Earl's post about a release after 17 years.
>
Yep.. see all the articles referring to those 100 some who
were released from a DP sentence. Clearly, in my mind,
had they been originally sentenced to an alternate penalty
they would STILL be in prison, as innocent men.
> >
> >> >That's simply the mantra of some abolitionists. Quite
> >> >clearly... cruelty does not enter into it, except in the examination of
> >> >how cruel the cause (the murder) was to expect such a penalty.
> >>
> >> You may try to relativate the cruelty of the DP by referring slogan-like
> to
> >> the cruelties of individuals. This procedere however *proves* the point
> of
> >> CP's cruelty rather than to nullify it.
> >>
> >The DP is no more 'cruel' than ANY penalty for a crime. Every penalty
> >deprives someone of some portion of their freedom.
>
> "Some portion of their freedom" is and remains another quality than to deny
> the right to live. Death row is a psychologically lingering death, for many,
> many years. Full Stop.
>
No... what kind of logic is that? We only have so many DAYS
IN OUR LIFE. And your 'opinion' holds no more validity than mine
did, above. I said 'less' and you said that was only my opinion.
You now say 'more' and expect everyone to bow down before
YOUR opinion.
No... it's clearer in German, but STILL doesn't make much sense.
Although a bit more in German. Essentially you are asking ==
A realization whether your thesis has verifiable content, is if it exhibits
or does not require a critical view of whether from your system one
can distinguish if those condemned or those not condemned are
executed in respect to their crimes and their criminal liabity toward
others.
Using as many 'elegant' words as you can possibly find to
'impress' me. And a huge run-on sentence typical of German.
Not one friggin' period in the whole damn thing.
And clearly, the answer to your still muddled question is that the
question itself is posed in a manner (as many of your 'questions'
in English), that lends itself to making a statement inside of the
question. Clearly the answer is such a critical view is embodied
in the trial process itself. We cannot claim to 'know' more than
what the trial process discovered. We can form 'opinions'
regarding that process. And we can certainly hold opinions
that some who we believe should have been executed, were
not. And contrarily hold opinions that some who we believe
should not have been executed were. One could easily pose
your question in respect to the ENTIRE Justice System, since
the process of finding guilt/innocence is within THAT process.
The question of 'have we ALWAYS executed the 'right' person,
in respect to comparing the murder committed by THAT person
to all other murders, is simply an exercise in triviality. Since
we certainly can ask that about ANY crime committed by
ANY person, receiving ANY sentence.
> J.
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B994036F.2AB3%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
And you certainly haven't provided anything to disprove such
an argument. While certainly it's been proven in respect to
the parochial and condescending statements you've made in
respect to Blacks.
But right now, I'm trying to get a handle as to what kind
of a retentionist you would consider to be 'moral' and not
have a 'corroded soul.' It's a rather simple question. But one
you've avoided like the plague. While simply providing, as your
mentor Desmond 'I don't what to die' Couglan does, paedomorphic
insults containing not a bit of information. Clearly, Earl, you
are ill-equipped to deal with life' problems.
PV
> Earl
>
>
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:09:56 +0000
>
>Le Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:55:20 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>{ snip LDB trying to arrive at the height of Earl's ankle ... }
>
>> But right now, I'm trying to get a handle as to what kind
>> of a retentionist you would consider to be 'moral' and not
>> have a 'corroded soul.' It's a rather simple question. But one
>> you've avoided like the plague. While simply providing, as your
>> mentor Desmond 'I don't what to die' Couglan does,
>
>ROTFLMAO !! Your obsession with 'Couglan' (sic) still as strong, I
>see ... and what exactly does, 'I don't what to die' mean ? Is this
>another Russian idiom that doesn't translate too well into English ?
>
>Why not remind us all of the two gaffes that earned you your Golden
>Moron awards ? O.J. and Woodward anyone ..? *guffaw!!*
>
>{ remainder snipped as being too pathetic for words ... }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- 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!news.tu-darmstadt.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: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:09:56 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 23
>Message-ID: <slrnamtae4.309.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><4dd99.89$aQ7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><B98BAC7D.193D%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D6620F1...@hotmail.com>
><B98C007C.1A34%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66452D...@hotmail.com>
><B98C1388.1A3B%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com>
><B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B98EA0DA.1EFD%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><2afa9.298118$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B98FAC83.1FFA%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><xiua9.312659$s8.54...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B990F904.21DB%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><X_Wa9.323667$s8.57...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B99244AB.24B1%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><dCfb9.11560$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B9939F71.29D7%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><vkqb9.15494$Rx4.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B994036F.2AB3%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><sDxb9.22793$bc.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030662715 54130046 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 30/08/02 0:17 :
> If there is ANY ONE PERSON
> in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
> certainly PV.
Pauvre chou.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:55:20 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
> { snip LDB trying to arrive at the height of Earl's ankle ... }
>
> > of a retentionist you would consider to be 'moral' and not
> > have a 'corroded soul.' It's a rather simple question. But one
> > you've avoided like the plague. While simply providing, as your
> > mentor Desmond 'I don't what to die' Couglan does,
>
> see ...
Now, now . Mr. Couglan.. temper...temper.
> and what exactly does, 'I don't what to die' mean ? Is this
> another Russian idiom that doesn't translate too well into English ?
>
It relates to the FACT that you've claimed that shit would be rolling
down your drawers, and you would be screaming 'I don't want to die!!!!!"
if you were faced with your imminent demise. How soon you forget
your own words -- "Personally, the guards would have a job holding me
down, as the litres of excreta that would be covering my legs, would
make it difficult for them to grab a hold of me .." In the thread
"re: Going quietly" 2000/09/20. But then again... 'death holds no
fear' for you.... ROTFLMAO.
> Why not remind us all of the two gaffes that earned you your Golden
> Moron awards ? O.J. and Woodward anyone ..? *guffaw!!*
>
Actually, I had the balls to admit I had said 'guilty' when I should have
said liable. However, you lack the balls to admit that I never used
the word 'murder' in respect to that argument, knowing full-well he
could not be 'convicted of murder' in a civil trial. In fact, to another
poster some time back in the thread "Re: so quicko" 2001-05-13
10:01:19 PST, when 'becky rickel' asked
"why is o.j. Simpson still walking around..."
I replied --
"Umm... because he was found innocent???"
Now, let's see. In the case of Woodward you said two very direct
statements -- I've left out the rest because it is just too embarrassing
for you, and what I did find rather shows that the GENERAL LAW
clearly rejects specifically these two conclusions (sic) you made --
"The Judge was _not_ empowered to 'overturn' the verdict.
All he could do was to reduce it to manslaughter. Which is what
he did."
"The judge is only authorized to adjust the jury verdict to reflect
a conclusion of a lesser degree of culpability ..."
And guess what??? The Massachusetts GENERAL LAWS say
you and JPB are totally full of crap -- See
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/278-11.htm
Because the LAW says --
CHAPTER 278. TRIALS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT.
Chapter 278: Section 11. Directed verdict; setting aside verdict,
new trial or finding of guilty of included offense.
Section 11. If a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty is denied
and the case is submitted to the jury and a verdict of guilty is
returned, the judge may on a renewed motion for a directed
verdict of not guilty pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of
Criminal Procedure set aside the verdict and order a new trial,
or order the entry of a finding of guilty of any offense included
in the offense charged in the indictment or complaint
I believe that is rather conclusive evidence that the judge is 'empowered'
to do MORE than simply reduce it to manslaughter.
<snip whine>
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 30/08/02 9:10 :
Your posting time
Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:10:56 EDT
is in the middle of the night, Florida time, PV.
You are obsessed.
Earl
Earl Evleth
Coughlan à pasdespa...@zeouane.org a écrit le 30/08/02 12:09 :
> Le Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:17:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
> écrit :
> { snip }
>
>> What the hell are you talking about? If there is ANY ONE PERSON
>> in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
>> certainly PV.
>
> There you go again, defining your own 'moral standards', imposing
> them on others, and to boot, referring to yourself in the third
> person. No wonder you get ridiculed so much 'in here'.
You have to realized that the crawly creatures justifiably are paranoid,
they think people are trying to stomp them underfoot all the time.
PV, being cafardesques, feels, he has to scurry along, a quick dash here
another there. Dung beetles have a hard time in life.
Earl
Jürgen
Go figure.
And: Go to any message board of any *particular death row inmate* and
experience your combattants' attitudes: Because there is more in the world
than AAD-P.
J.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>
>of a retentionist you would consider to be 'moral' and not
>have a 'corroded soul.'
Neil.
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:ako8ro$dob$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
Yes.. go figure the reason that abolitionists indulge in such 'hate.'
Certainly 'I' am not a murderer. But apparently MY presence here,
generates more 'hate' from abolitionists then they hold toward
murderers themselves. I have argued with many abolitionists
who claim to not hold hate toward murderers, but certainly demonstrate
they hold hate toward retentionists. It's rather clear, right here in this
group. Without even naming a name, it would be absurd to deny
it, simply by the reaction to my comment alone.
>
> And: Go to any message board of any *particular death row inmate* and
> experience your combattants' attitudes: Because there is more in the world
> than AAD-P.
>
Of course there is. But you apparently overlooked my remark. We cannot
expect to find a 'rational' cross-section of those who support the DP,
within the group who correspond or interact with murderers in prison.
It is EITHER INTENSE HATE or INTENSE LOVE. Witness our
resident abolitionist, Earl, who sends 'care packages' to those murderers.
And you yourself, seeming rather obsessed with visiting such
message boards; commiserating with murderers, and expressing how
much you 'pity' them.
PV
> J.
Jürgen
A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
>> >> I had the doubtful pleasure to experience the lynch mob myself, Sir.
>> There
>> >> *IS* *FACTUAL* *PROOF* for lots of guys who are prepared for violent
>> >> measures against anyone who would dare disturbing their sick
>> >> execution-phantasies, regardless whether there are speaking
considerable
>> >> facts against their imaginations or not.
>> >>
>> >What the hell are you talking about? If there is ANY ONE PERSON
>> >in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
>> >certainly PV.
>>
>> Go figure.
>
>Yes.. go figure the reason that abolitionists indulge in such 'hate.'
>Certainly 'I' am not a murderer. But apparently MY presence here,
>generates more 'hate' from abolitionists then they hold toward
>murderers themselves.
[The argumentation about capital punishment wil be repetitive. The following
however I'll post once. Normally I'd mail this to the private account.]
People can stand direct insults, as they can easily be ignored. What has way
greater insulting potential is to pretend a serious argument, whilst using
dishonest methods. This is transporting an implicite claim of the
discussion-partner's silliness and a deep contempt for your vis-à-vis.
Furthermore a coincidence of (1) flaming and insulting opponents on a
regular basis and (2) whiny complaints to get *RE*-flamed is a quite
ludicrous affair.
This, Sir, are the reasons why you are so severely insulted here. Not your
retentionist standpoint. Note that there are other retentionists who are
treated much better than you.
>> And: Go to any message board of any *particular death row inmate* and
>> experience your combattants' attitudes: Because there is more in the
world
>> than AAD-P.
>>
>Of course there is. But you apparently overlooked my remark. We cannot
>expect to find a 'rational' cross-section of those who support the DP,
>within the group who correspond or interact with murderers in prison.
>It is EITHER INTENSE HATE or INTENSE LOVE.
While I well agree with the first, i.e. that a retentionist is bound to
uphold intense hate as a requirement for an execution I disagree with the
latter. You have not to love anyone intensely for granting him his life.
Most of this people have committed horrible crimes and deserve a harsh
penalty. It is surely no act of love to advocate for an extended prison
term.
Witness our
>resident abolitionist, Earl, who sends 'care packages' to those murderers.
>And you yourself, seeming rather obsessed with visiting such
>message boards; commiserating with murderers, and expressing how
>much you 'pity' them.
>
You refuse to take position to crucial questions related to this point.
J.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:40:57 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:02:21 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit
>:
>
>>> If there is ANY ONE PERSON
>>> in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
>>> certainly PV.
>
>> Pauvre chou.
>
>ITYM, pov' tache ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!un
i-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 09:40:57 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 15
>Message-ID: <slrnamufd9.3fv.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><4dd99.89$aQ7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><B98BAC7D.193D%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D6620F1...@hotmail.com>
><B98C007C.1A34%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66452D...@hotmail.com>
><B98C1388.1A3B%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com>
><B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akag4t$1r9$00$1...@news.t-online.com>
><3afa9.298119$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akdrtc$ssa$03$1...@news.t-online.com>
><DACa9.317156$s8.55...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akgagm$pnu$02$1...@news.t-online.com>
><P3xb9.22727$bc.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><B994E51D.2C7E%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030700783 54532177 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:09:06 +0000
>
>Le Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:17:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>{ snip }
>
>> What the hell are you talking about? If there is ANY ONE PERSON
>> in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
>> certainly PV.
>
>There you go again, defining your own 'moral standards', imposing
>them on others, and to boot, referring to yourself in the third
>person. No wonder you get ridiculed so much 'in here'.
>
>I doubt seriously whether you really understand the meaning of the
>word 'hate'; and I'm not talking about the dictionary definition. You
>decide that there is 'hatred' directed towards you, because we take the
>right royal piss out of your opinionated and disingenuous rantings
>on AADP. Well you're wrong.
>
>I don't 'hate' you. I believe that hatred is such a negative emotion,
>that the only person really harmed, is he who hates. You could extrapolate
>that opinion to a belief in karma, and you'd be right. Second, 'hatred'
>would mean that I'd be willing to try to find your real name, your address,
>come over there and shoot you (or be shot, trying). That would be
>'hatred'. I don't know your real name, and whilst I certainly call into
>question the value of your opinions here, and/or your own belief in
>them, due to an irrational desire to remain 'anonymous', I certainly
>have no desire to 'find you'.
>
>Even if the above were not true, there remains one barrier to my 'hating'
>you, and that is that I do not know you. I consider it absurd to 'hate'
>someone that you do not know. I certainly consider your opinions morally
>repugnant, and say so here, but shall not commit the same error as you,
>by seeking to impose on others what is essentially my decision, borne
>of my own value judgements. I would be as guilty as you, of what I
>might term 'moralistic fundamentalism', if I sought to do so.
>
>QZD stated it a while back, and for some reason, you attacked him for
>that opinion, and you certainly don't seem to have taken on board his
>words. You are suffering from a severe sense of humour bypass, if
>you believe that calling you a 'paedophile' was an expression of a
>genuine belief that you are one. It was to piss you off, and it appears
>to have succeeded. Not for one second did I believe that you were one.
>Likewise the 'web site'. Likewise calling you 'LDB'. Likewise the
>'black smoke' saga. That it worked, and did piss you off, is shown
>by your continuing to refer to it, whereas I don't mention your calling
>me a racist (I even 'tweaked' your nose a few days back, by using the
>word 'jigaboo'), or inventing 'FDP', or by calling my wife 'dolly', or
>'desi', or any of the other little inventions that you create.
>
>What _you_ say about _me_, is like water off a duck's back, as long
>as it's said in here, and doesn't seek to 'leak' out of the newsgroup
>into real life, into _my_ real life. You would do well to adopt the
>same attitude. It would certainly lower your blood pressure, and (and
>this is a freebie) would deprive me of a lot of the pleasure I get from
>winding you up.
>
>> Even more than Sharp, and Don Kool, since they
>
>See above. Sharp is irrelevant to me. Kool sought to harm innocent
>people, in real life, even those whose only 'crime' was to share my
>surname. _That_ is why I came down on him so hard. You have not done
>so, and I should be astonished if you did.
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Clearly, 'we' have been accused of having a 'corroded soul'
>
>LOL ... and you call _this_ hatred ?!
>
>It's all just grist to the mill on AADP, PV. Lighten up, for Christ's
>sake.
>
>{ snip }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!howland.erols.net!fu-berl
in.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: Sacco and Vanzetti
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:09:06 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 78
>Message-ID: <slrnamuh21.3fv.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><4dd99.89$aQ7.18...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
><B98BAC7D.193D%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D6620F1...@hotmail.com>
><B98C007C.1A34%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66452D...@hotmail.com>
><B98C1388.1A3B%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com>
><B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akag4t$1r9$00$1...@news.t-online.com>
><3afa9.298119$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akdrtc$ssa$03$1...@news.t-online.com>
><DACa9.317156$s8.55...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akgagm$pnu$02$1...@news.t-online.com>
><P3xb9.22727$bc.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>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: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030702386 53981154 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B99552FF.2ECE%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
my point.
PV
> Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:akohpa$ml5$06$1...@news.t-online.com...
Perhaps you can ask Earl who HE believes is a moral
retentionist, not having a 'corroded soul.' Since he will not
answer a question from me, and instead flounces away in a
childish snit. Quite unlike the perception he would ask
others to form of his august presence here.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B9950475.2D59%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
PV
> Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:17:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
> { snip }
>
> > in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
> > certainly PV.
>
> them on others, and to boot, referring to yourself in the third
> person. No wonder you get ridiculed so much 'in here'.
>
others. I simply recognize the rather obvious. The fact that you've
referred to me as a pedophile is rather 'hateful.' You must be
in borderline neurotic denial, if you don't realize that you 'hate' me in
respect to 'this newsgroup.' Obviously extending no further than
that. Although I must say that in respect to Don Kool it DID
extend beyond here, you having accused him of firebombing
your flat, and claiming to have been 'responsible' for sending him
to Federal prison. You need to understand that such is not an
example of 'rational thought,' in posting here.
> I doubt seriously whether you really understand the meaning of the
> word 'hate'; and I'm not talking about the dictionary definition. You
> decide that there is 'hatred' directed towards you, because we take the
> right royal piss out of your opinionated and disingenuous rantings
> on AADP. Well you're wrong.
>
Ummm.. FDP... if we can't rely on 'dictionary definitions' then
apparently you believe we can make up your own. dirtdog does.
Obviously, between you and I there is a rather deep amount of
'hate.' I certainly 'hate' evil, and to be quite truthful I see it in
many of your comments. Usually directed against retentionists
in general or specifically, and your (you must admit this) hate
for things American.
There is no doubt in my mind that you 'hate' me, in respect to
my presence here. Obviously, beyond our 'imaginary existence'
that we present here, you're not connected to me, and I'm not
connected to you in a personal context. So this 'hate' only
extends to the sense of our postings here. But you really
need to examine your own prejudices, and recognizes that
you have been a 'wayward missile' on many occasions.
> I don't 'hate' you. I believe that hatred is such a negative emotion,
Is this another of your 'pious' attempts to appear 'paradoxical'?
Of course hate has a negative connotation. But denying it is even
worse. The difference between one who admits to 'hate' and the
other who denies it, is that the former is a realist and the latter
is a hypocrite.
> that the only person really harmed, is he who hates. You could extrapolate
> that opinion to a belief in karma, and you'd be right. Second, 'hatred'
> would mean that I'd be willing to try to find your real name, your address,
> come over there and shoot you (or be shot, trying). That would be
> 'hatred'. I don't know your real name, and whilst I certainly call into
> question the value of your opinions here, and/or your own belief in
> them, due to an irrational desire to remain 'anonymous', I certainly
> have no desire to 'find you'.
>
Don't be absurd. You cannot equate hate into the terms you've
placed it. But let me assure you, that you DO hate 'me' for what
I post here, which extends to my posting anonymously.
Whether you are obsessed enough to take it any further is
totally irrelevant. If you did not 'hate' me in the sense of my
presence here, you would not find it necessary to even respond
to this post, as defensively as you now do.
> Even if the above were not true, there remains one barrier to my 'hating'
> you, and that is that I do not know you. I consider it absurd to 'hate'
> someone that you do not know.
Quite wrong. There is no 'requirement' that you have to KNOW
someone to 'hate' them. I 'hate' murderers. Not for the entire
person that they represent, but for the act they CAUSED. Because
I hate murder. And I certainly don't KNOW any murderer in a
personal sense. Nor do I 'hate' any murderer in a TOTAL sense
of their entire existence. You do not 'hate' me for the entire person
that I represent (nor do I you), because we do not KNOW that whole
person. I hate you, and you hate me, for our presence HERE.
And ONLY in respect to our presence here. Quite clearly,
regardless of how you would deny it -- You 'hate' ALL retentionists.
You refer to ALL of them as 'deathies' which presumes a great
deal of hate in that word. Any retentionist who refers to any
abolitionist as a 'murderer-lover' HATES that person for the
perception that they ARE a murderer-lover. Certainly Earl
hates ALL retentionists. He could not even answer a simply
question to NAME JUST ONE retentionist that he felt was not
'under a rock' or did not possess a 'corroded soul.' Now I wouldn't
expect you to hate the ACTUAL person of EVERY retentionist.
But if you have half a brain, you understand what I mean.
> I certainly consider your opinions morally
> repugnant, and say so here, but shall not commit the same error as you,
> by seeking to impose on others what is essentially my decision, borne
> of my own value judgements. I would be as guilty as you, of what I
> might term 'moralistic fundamentalism', if I sought to do so.
>
I ask no one to accept my moral judgment as theirs. You are
obviously unaware of my posts if you believe that. Because
I have ALWAYS expressed that morality is totally and absolutely
a 'SUBJECTIVE' judgment. Nothing is absolute about morality.
Further, I do not refer to all abolitionists as 'murderer-lovers' as
you refer to all retentionists as 'deathies.' I respect ANYONE who
holds a position that they have formed a 'moral' opposition to the
DP, if they respect that I have formed a different 'moral' view of
the DP. Obviously, you do not. I respect anyone who forms a
pragmatic opposition to the DP, although I disagree with their
conclusion that abolishing the DP is a pragmatic solution. And
I would hope they respect me for finding a different pragmatic
view of it. What I can't agree with is hypocrisy. And to be right
up front with this -- you stink of it.
And further, I have formed an opinion that the EU is hypocritical
in their sanctimonious claim of 'right to life' of a murderer, for
EVERY murderer. Although, I make no claim to suggesting
they change the way they do things. Simply how I SEE they
do things. I see it as hypocritical but not reaching any sense
of immorality in my view.
> QZD stated it a while back, and for some reason, you attacked him for
> that opinion, and you certainly don't seem to have taken on board his
> words. You are suffering from a severe sense of humour bypass, if
> you believe that calling you a 'paedophile' was an expression of a
> genuine belief that you are one. It was to piss you off, and it appears
> to have succeeded.
Of course it did. And don't try for one second to pretend that
when I point out that you said you would shit in your drawers
if faced with death in one post, and then in self-adoration
proclaimed that death held no fear for you, that you aren't
totally pissed off. Our 'purpose' here is apparently to piss
each other off (you and me). And it is an expression of hate.
Which returns to the basic premise I offered. Every time you
catch me in a misspeak, you gloat and gloat, hoping to piss
me off. While I certainly do the same. And the reason IS --
we 'hate' the PRESENCE of each other here. And do not
try to avoid this with some silly remark that 'you don't piss
me off, PV, you make me laugh.' Because that ISN'T
my meaning. I am speaking of what WE do, not how
we would DENY what effect it has on us.
> Not for one second did I believe that you were one.
> Likewise the 'web site'. Likewise calling you 'LDB'. Likewise the
> 'black smoke' saga. That it worked, and did piss you off, is shown
> by your continuing to refer to it, whereas I don't mention your calling
> me a racist (I even 'tweaked' your nose a few days back, by using the
> word '*****'), or inventing 'FDP', or by calling my wife 'dolly', or
> 'desi', or any of the other little inventions that you create.
>
Once used is quite enough. But at least you put it in quotes.
And you certainly didn't 'tweak' my nose, you silly shit. I'm White.
You tried to 'tweak' the nose of an entire race. But that somehow
is something you seem unable to grasp. You didn't call ME
that name, you USED it. And didn't even bother to put it in
quotes, which makes it ETERNALLY YOUR WORD here.
To put this into some kind of context you might possible understand,
try to imagine that a word existed that would be the most vile
possible insulting word one could say against ALL British (there
is of course, no EQUIVALENT word for the British to the one you
used for a Black. Which should give you some idea of what racism
actually is). Now presume that I USED that word within the
context of a post to you. Could that POSSIBLY reflect on you? Of
course not, you're neither British (a shame), nor did YOU say
the word. Who DOES it reflect on? Well, ME, of course. So...
I am neither Black, nor did I write the word. YOU DID.
So what does that make YOU? You figure it out.
> What _you_ say about _me_, is like water off a duck's back, as long
> as it's said in here, and doesn't seek to 'leak' out of the newsgroup
> into real life, into _my_ real life. You would do well to adopt the
> same attitude. It would certainly lower your blood pressure, and (and
> this is a freebie) would deprive me of a lot of the pleasure I get from
> winding you up.
>
If you think you 'wind me up,' in any sense of 'real life,' you're
sadly mistaken. I actually LOOK FORWARD to slapping you
down. After all... I am retired. You're simply casual amusement
to me. This is one of the very few posts to you, where you will
find I even try to get you to understand. Because I gave up on
you a long...long...long time ago.
> > Even more than Sharp, and Don Kool, since they
>
> See above. Sharp is irrelevant to me. Kool sought to harm innocent
> people, in real life, even those whose only 'crime' was to share my
> surname. _That_ is why I came down on him so hard. You have not done
> so, and I should be astonished if you did.
>
Actually, FDP... you have presented NOT one shred of evidence
in respect to Don Kool, and have been refuted by someone familiar
with him, by the fact that he has never stopped posting for
any length of time at all, and by the fact that the Baltimore County
Police are not the Federal authorities. Further, you made some
very GRAVE accusations SPECIFICALLY in respect to him having
committed a very GRAVE felony. Accusing him of firebombing
your flat, which is a crime every bit as serious as rape. You would
do well to announce that your accusation did not rest on any
foundation of truth. Because your words did not contain any
sense that it was your 'opinion' that he did, but were rather
a presentation of a FACTUAL claim that he had firebombed your
flat.
> { snip }
>
> > Clearly, 'we' have been accused of having a 'corroded soul'
>
> LOL ... and you call _this_ hatred ?!
>
To one who believes that our species has a soul, clearly it is
one of the more 'hateful' insults I can think of. It has nothing
to do with any 'organized religious' aspect, but a rather fundamental
belief that we are not superior to nature itself. That nature itself
has a 'being' and we are part of that 'being.' In point of fact,
it's PURPOSE was to BE HATEFUL. I try very hard to limit
my insults to those relating to intelligence or a lack of perceptive
abilities. I am not always perfect in that respect, but I will
clearly say that I TRY to be that way. Stupid comments are
ALWAYS fair game, as far as I'm concerned. And I do not
expect any favorable treatment from others in respect to my remarks
in that direction as well.
> It's all just grist to the mill on AADP, PV. Lighten up, for Christ's
> sake.
Why not ask Earl if he doesn't 'hate' me. And watch the old fart
dance.
PV
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
A Planet Visitor
"Jürgen" <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:akoorq$cnb$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> A Planet Visitor schrieb in Nachricht ...
> <snip>
>
> >> >> I had the doubtful pleasure to experience the lynch mob myself, Sir.
> >> There
> >> >> *IS* *FACTUAL* *PROOF* for lots of guys who are prepared for violent
> >> >> measures against anyone who would dare disturbing their sick
> >> >> execution-phantasies, regardless whether there are speaking
> considerable
> >> >> facts against their imaginations or not.
> >> >>
> >> >What the hell are you talking about? If there is ANY ONE PERSON
> >> >in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
> >> >certainly PV.
> >>
> >> Go figure.
> >
> >Yes.. go figure the reason that abolitionists indulge in such 'hate.'
> >Certainly 'I' am not a murderer. But apparently MY presence here,
> >generates more 'hate' from abolitionists then they hold toward
> >murderers themselves.
>
> [The argumentation about capital punishment wil be repetitive. The following
> however I'll post once. Normally I'd mail this to the private account.]
>
> People can stand direct insults, as they can easily be ignored. What has way
> greater insulting potential is to pretend a serious argument, whilst using
> dishonest methods. This is transporting an implicite claim of the
> discussion-partner's silliness and a deep contempt for your vis-à-vis.
>
my views are 'evil.' They have held contempt for me. Clearly YOU
hold contempt for my views. And I admit I hold contempt for yours,
in your presuming that murderers deserve our 'pity.' And it's humorous
that you 'picked out' a retentionist who has been long gone, as one
you consider 'not evil.' I would presume that someone who CHANGES
their view from retentionist to abolitionist would SUDDENLY also
become 'not evil' in your view.
> Furthermore a coincidence of (1) flaming and insulting opponents on a
> regular basis and (2) whiny complaints to get *RE*-flamed is a quite
> ludicrous affair.
>
Those type posts are NOT all 'one-sided,' sport. Clearly, I have
never claimed that another poster's mother provided me oral
copulation. Clearly I have not forged posts using the handle of
another poster here. And clearly I have not devoted an obsessive
amount of effort to creating web pages meant to insult others.
The first example was certainly applied on me. The second example
was applied to make it appear I was a racist, and there is still
a person imitating my handle. The third has been tried by THREE
different abolitionists here. This is not whining, because I truly
don't give a shit about all that. But do not presume YOU can
insult ME with your petty bullshit, obliquely claiming that I provide
flames and insults to 'opponents.' Clearly, when you FIND an
effective 'opponent' to me here, point him out. I haven't seen one
yet. And certainly YOU don't measure up.
> This, Sir, are the reasons why you are so severely insulted here. Not your
> retentionist standpoint. Note that there are other retentionists who are
> treated much better than you.
>
No, I am severely insulted because my argument cannot be handled.
No retentionist can accept that society self-defense plays a role in
the DP. To do so, admits a pragmatic purpose to it, and it no
longer can be seen as simply 'revenge.' Once some abolitionists lose
that CRUTCH they depend on, their argument loses much of its
flavor.
Need some fodder to handle?? You always speak of how my list
doesn't have much validity. How about this? See -
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
There you will find that of the total of 3,593 under sentence of
death, as reported by the U.S. government, a total of 285 of
them had prior conviction for HOMICIDE. This works out to
a recidivist rate for those on DR of 7.9%. Rather flies in the
face of those claiming how LOW the recidivism rate is for
convicted but released murderers. Trust me, I will be mentioning
this figure again, until someone offers a rebuttal.
> >> And: Go to any message board of any *particular death row inmate* and
> >> experience your combattants' attitudes: Because there is more in the
> world
> >> than AAD-P.
> >>
> >Of course there is. But you apparently overlooked my remark. We cannot
> >expect to find a 'rational' cross-section of those who support the DP,
> >within the group who correspond or interact with murderers in prison.
> >It is EITHER INTENSE HATE or INTENSE LOVE.
>
> While I well agree with the first, i.e. that a retentionist is bound to
> uphold intense hate as a requirement for an execution I disagree with the
> latter. You have not to love anyone intensely for granting him his life.
> Most of this people have committed horrible crimes and deserve a harsh
> penalty. It is surely no act of love to advocate for an extended prison
> term.
Oh, please... I do not mean 'love' in the sense that you wish to
'take them home' with you. I mean it in the sense that many wish
to 'bond' morally and emotionally with the murderer, seeing him as
a 'victim' without the slightest clue of the actual act that brought him
to that most terrible of ends. Clearly with those who express hate, I do
not mean THEY wish to physically attack or kill the murderer themselves.
It is in both respects, an EMOTIONAL response, rather than anything
in a physical sense.
>
> Witness our
> >resident abolitionist, Earl, who sends 'care packages' to those murderers.
> >And you yourself, seeming rather obsessed with visiting such
> >message boards; commiserating with murderers, and expressing how
> >much you 'pity' them.
> >
>
> You refuse to take position to crucial questions related to this point.
>
Perhaps you'd like to take a position on the 'critical question' I
asked you. How many murders must a murderer commit, when
he is caught EVERY TIME he murders, before he should be
executed? 3 times? 4 times? 5 times?
Exactly what 'critical question' are YOU referring to? That I don't
'like' those who murder? That I don't feel it appropriate to 'feel pity'
for a murderer? That I expect society to deal with murderers, from
the moment they murder? That I expect society to express mercy
when it seems appropriate to do so, but I do not expect to
second-guess society on EVERY action it takes?
PV
> J.
>
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B9950475.2D59%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
I leave that for senile old farts who go to sleep at 8 at night,
and wake up at 8 in the morning. I long ago learned to do
with as little sleep as possible, since we only have so many
days on your planet (on my planet we have more). When was
the last time you shucked your bathrobe and slippers?
And tell us more about how 'morale' (sic) you are???
PV
> Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B9939F71.29D7%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
all in one gulp to accomplish, Earl.
> Earl
>
>
>
>
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 31/08/02 6:44 :
Take the cure, PV, get a good night's sleep.
This message was posted well after mid-night.
Can't you stand the light of day?
Earl
Earl Evleth
Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 31/08/02 8:24 :
A pitiful attempt at self-defense. I am in bed around 11 PM, along
with Gaston and my dear wife, and up at 7. I read a while before
drifting off to sleep.
One think this does confirm, is that your lack of sleep is a self-confessed
pathology, perhaps your darkened soul prevents from sleeping like other
people.
Your sentence
"since we only have so many days on your planet (on my planet we have more)"
indicates you really do have some delusions with respect to this "Planet
Visitor" gimmick.
One weird guy.
Earl
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped>
> I long ago learned to do
>with as little sleep as possible
And no fucking wonder, either.
I for one, find it impossible to sleep in a room thick with the scent
of rotting kippers - which is sadly a by-product of sharing a bed with
your wife.
w00f
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:TQXb9.39858$bc.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnamuh21.3fv.p...@lievre.voute.net...
> > Le Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:17:19 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
a écrit :
> > { snip }
> >
> > > What the hell are you talking about? If there is ANY ONE PERSON
> > > in this newgroup who is the target of MORE HATE, it is most
> > > certainly PV.
> >
> > There you go again, defining your own 'moral standards', imposing
> > them on others, and to boot, referring to yourself in the third
> > person. No wonder you get ridiculed so much 'in here'.
That the trouble with 'moral' standards - they are subjective and are
usually indicative of the culture, religion, standard of living etc that
those
who believe in such standards were brought up to. Practical or
common sense solutions are more easily translated from one culture
to another. But why waste my precious substance on you two?
You are both insane 'moralists'.
John Rennie
> Le Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:51:14 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
snip
>
> I'm now going to answer him, after I put the kettle on and make myself
> a cup of Earl Grey.
Ugh!! Dreadful stuff. I bet if you smoked you'd smoke menthol
cigarettes. Give me Assam any time.
John Rennie
> Le Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:58:35 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> >> I'm now going to answer him, after I put the kettle on and make myself
> >> a cup of Earl Grey.
>
> > Ugh!! Dreadful stuff. I bet if you smoked you'd smoke menthol
> > cigarettes. Give me Assam any time.
>
> the strange habit of putting milk into it, but then no one ever said
> I was perfect ...
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
No, you're right. No one has ever said that.
Sharpjfa
>From: "giovanni" giova...@nospam.yahoo.it
>Date: 8/22/02 3:19 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
>
>Tomorrow, 23rd August 2002 is the 75.th anniversary of the execution of
>Sacco and Vanzetti.
>
>Don't forget, Americans
We won't. The evidence of guilt seems pretty solid for one and the other, at
this date, we cannot be sure. There was certainly some legal misconduct in that
case, many years, ago, and we are happy to report that we have had in the US,
for many years, a much better system in place.
sharp Justice For All http://www.jfa.net/
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/ http://www.murdervictims.com/
Overwhelmingly, the US criminal justice system benefits criminals, dishonors
victims and contributes to future victimizations.
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B99635CE.311F%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> dans l'article TQXb9.39857$bc.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 31/08/02 6:44 :
>
> >
> > "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> > news:B9950475.2D59%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >> dans l'article 4UEb9.22326$Rx4.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> >> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 30/08/02 9:10 :
> >>
> >>
> >> Your posting time
> >>
> >> Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:10:56 EDT
> >>
> >> is in the middle of the night, Florida time, PV.
> >>
> >> You are obsessed.
> >>
> > But they have cures for that. While you're stupid.
>
> Take the cure, PV, get a good night's sleep.
>
other than your pompous self, are you? A 'good night's
sleep' might well 'cure' what you seem to think possesses
me. While they have no 'cure' for the stupidity that possesses
you as yet.
Going to bed at 11 PM in Paris!!!! My God.. you must be 100
years old. At least I have an excuse, here in shuffleboard city.
If it were not for other considerations it would be big-city
condo for me, and certainly not an 11 PM curfew.
<pathetic obsessive remark clipped>
PV
> Earl
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:B9963701.3120%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> dans l'article AiZb9.43193$Rx4.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 31/08/02 8:24 :
>
> >
> > "Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> > news:B9950475.2D59%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> >> dans l'article 4UEb9.22326$Rx4.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com, A Planet
> >> Visitor à abc...@zbqytr.ykq a écrit le 30/08/02 9:10 :
> >>
> >>
> >> Your posting time
> >>
> >> Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:10:56 EDT
> >>
> >> is in the middle of the night, Florida time, PV.
> >>
> >> You are obsessed.
> >>
> > Ho ho ho... I'm not one of the 'early' to bed types, Earl.
> > I leave that for senile old farts who go to sleep at 8 at night,
> > and wake up at 8 in the morning. I long ago learned to do
> > with as little sleep as possible, since we only have so many
> > days on your planet (on my planet we have more). When was
> > the last time you shucked your bathrobe and slippers?
> > And tell us more about how 'morale' (sic) you are???
> >
>
> A pitiful attempt at self-defense. I am in bed around 11 PM, along
> with Gaston and my dear wife, and up at 7. I read a while before
> drifting off to sleep.
>
Like so many before him.
For a 'pitiful attempt at self-defense,' look at your own 'schedule,'
Earl. In bed around 11 PM in Paris. Get outta here!! 11 PM is
supper-time in Paris. Try going to Les Halles, and catch supper
at 11 PM in Pied de Cochon. You'll find it packed. And you'll find life
just BEGINNING. And if you leave before 3 AM, you'll be the first
one to do so.
Alors grand père....et les noctambules c'est quoi? Cette vie
intense qui commence quand les couilles molles vont se
coucher, ces conversation jusqu'au petit matin qui refont
le monde et qui donnent des Sartre, des Baudelaire, des
Verlaine..... des génies inconnus qui te donnent des cours
plus intéressant que toute la Sorbonne.
To bed at 11 PM in Paris!! No wonder I find you to be a senile old
fart. Face it, Earl. Your 'example' of a typical 'day in the life of
someone in Paris,' is the most depressing thing I could imagine.
> One think this does confirm, is that your lack of sleep is a self-confessed
> pathology, perhaps your darkened soul prevents from sleeping like other
> people.
>
One thing that is confirmed is that you are half-dead already, if in Paris
and you go to sleep at 11 PM.
> Your sentence
>
> "since we only have so many days on your planet (on my planet we have more)"
>
> indicates you really do have some delusions with respect to this "Planet
> Visitor" gimmick.
>
> One weird guy.
What is 'weird' is confusing 'morale' with 'moral.' Now THAT'S weird.
PV
>
> Earl
>
>
>
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
snip
>
> To bed at 11 PM in Paris!! No wonder I find you to be a senile old
> fart. Face it, Earl. Your 'example' of a typical 'day in the life of
> someone in Paris,' is the most depressing thing I could imagine.
>
> > One think this does confirm, is that your lack of sleep is a
self-confessed
> > pathology, perhaps your darkened soul prevents from sleeping like other
> > people.
> >
> One thing that is confirmed is that you are half-dead already, if in Paris
> and you go to sleep at 11 PM.
'Six hours sleep for a man, seven for a woman
and eight for a fool'
yours_most_truly
> > 'Six hours sleep for a man, seven for a woman
> and eight for a fool'
>
>
http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1685.53303
http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gm=20!gsq=insomnia!gid2=1221
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:13:22 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:54:09 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>>> >> I'm now going to answer him, after I put the kettle on and make myself
>>> >> a cup of Earl Grey.
>
>>> > Ugh!! Dreadful stuff. I bet if you smoked you'd smoke menthol
>>> > cigarettes. Give me Assam any time.
>
>>> Earl Grey (especially Twinings) is the only tea that matters. I have
>>> the strange habit of putting milk into it, but then no one ever said
>>> I was perfect ...
>
>> No, you're right. No one has ever said that.
>
>I changed my mind and had a coke, instead.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!howland.erols.net!newsfee
d.cwix.com!isdnet!noos.fr!not-for-mail
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Subject: Re: Sacco and Vanzetti
>References: <7Hb99.90895$lu5.2...@twister1.libero.it>
><B98BAC7D.193D%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D6620F1...@hotmail.com>
><B98C007C.1A34%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66452D...@hotmail.com>
><B98C1388.1A3B%evl...@wanadoo.fr> <3D66BD7A...@hotmail.com>
><B98D0245.1B42%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
><9RV99.375859$XH.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akag4t$1r9$00$1...@news.t-online.com>
><3afa9.298119$s8.53...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akdrtc$ssa$03$1...@news.t-online.com>
><DACa9.317156$s8.55...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><akgagm$pnu$02$1...@news.t-online.com>
><P3xb9.22727$bc.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamuh21.3fv.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><TQXb9.39858$bc.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><lk0c9.1887$5g6....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnan14ie.agq.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><dr0c9.1892$5g6....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnan1572.arl.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><kf1c9.847$uj4....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>Organization: None
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>Message-ID: <slrnan196i.b2k.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:13:22 +0000
>Lines: 21
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Aug 2002 11:14:40 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.68.117
>X-Trace: 1030792480 news.noos.fr 19543 212.198.68.117
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@noos.fr