More on LWOP ...
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:54:39 +0000
>
>... lest it be claimed that murderers 'always get out' to kill again ...
>
>url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2381449.stm
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!
newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp21
2-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-ma
>il
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:54:39 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 8
>Message-ID: <slrnas5mvv.j27.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1036180634 5388814 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnas5mvv.j27.p...@lievre.voute.net...
> ... lest it be claimed that murderers 'always get out' to kill again ...
>
> url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2381449.stm
>
is clear evidence that murderers 'do get out,' and they often murder
again when they do. And even when they 'don't get out,' they often
manage to murder others in prison, and act as teachers to those
who have never murdered, and probably never would if not having
been taught by the 'masters.'
PV
> --
> Rev Desmond Coughlan |Superlunary and Most Exalted
|Spiritual Leader of the Universal
|Right to Life Church. (umm... get
|away from me -- you filthy black
|starving child in Africa) 'My church'
|isn't for you.
JIGSAW1695
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
Date: 11/3/2002 9:23 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <slrnasaca5.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:17:37 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> a écrit :
{ snip }
> 'I cream in my pants when they execute a dumbfuck nigga fry black fucker,
Click here, Jigsaw: mailto:ab...@zeouane.org. *snigger*
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
http: // www . zeouane . org
===============================
Geez Dezi, I always knew you had a profound self-destructive bent. Consider it
done.... but just to make you happy.
Perplexed
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnasaemc.fln.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 03 Nov 2002 14:56:32 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> 'I cream in my pants when they execute a dumbfuck nigga fry black fucker,
>
> Click here, Jigsaw: mailto:ab...@zeouane.org. *snigger*
> Geez Dezi, I always knew you had a profound self-destructive bent. Consider
it
> done.... but just to make you happy.
Don't be an idiot, Jigsaw. France still has the right to free expression.
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
http: // www . zeouane . org
===============================
Want to discuss the message AOL sent you by E-Mail. Do you mind if I publish it
here?
Richard J
>
> ... lest it be claimed that murderers 'always get out' to kill again
Gee, Desmond. I've not seen THAT claim. I have seen it said, and
truthfully, that murderers may kill again as long as they live, and the
proper application of the death penalty end that threat.
Come to think of it, in Texas, a jury must find that a capital murderer
is a continued threat to society before they may assign the death
penalty. I've never heard of one jury given instruction saying murderer
WILL kill again.
Teflon
...
>
> url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2381449.stm
>
> --
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnasanlv.gmh.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 03 Nov 2002 16:37:07 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>> Don't be an idiot, Jigsaw. France still has the right to free expression.
> Want to discuss the message AOL sent you by E-Mail. Do you mind if I publish
it
> here?
What _are_ you wittering on about, you retard (think 'relative' ...) ?
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
Are you going to give me permission or not???
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnasas9n.hg6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 03 Nov 2002 18:53:49 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> What _are_ you wittering on about, you retard (think 'relative' ...) ?
> Are you going to give me permission or not???
Post whatever you like, man. AOL haven't written to me, so why should I
bother ?
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
Subj: Re: Offensive Statement.
Date: 11/3/2002 10:02:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ab...@zeouane.org
To: JIGSA...@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mr. Jigsaw,
We Thank you for your email. This user has been warned of his behavior. We
have recieved many complaints at his language. If he does it again, we will
terminate his account. Thank you.
Zeouane Abuse Desk
ab...@zeouane.org
===============================
Mr. Coughlan has sent me this E-Mail in reply. Please explain :
Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
Date: 11/3/2002 1:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <slrnasas9n.hg6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 03 Nov 2002 18:53:49 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> What _are_ you wittering on about, you retard (think 'relative' ...) ?
> Are you going to give me permission or not???
Post whatever you like, man. AOL haven't written to me, so why should I
bother ?
--
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
From: Desmond Coughlan pasdespa...@zeouane.org
Date: 11/3/2002 1:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <slrnasas9n.hg6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 03 Nov 2002 18:53:49 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> What _are_ you wittering on about, you retard (think 'relative' ...) ?
> Are you going to give me permission or not???
Post whatever you like, man. AOL haven't written to me, so why should I
bother ?
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
OK. Here is what AOL sent me. Who is lying? You or them?
Subj: Re: Offensive Statement.
Date: 11/3/2002 10:02:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ab...@zeouane.org
To: JIGSA...@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Mr. Jigsaw,
We Thank you for your email. This user has been warned of his behavior. We
have recieved many complaints at his language. If he does it again, we will
terminate his account. Thank you.
----
Zeouane Abuse Desk
ab...@zeouane.org
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@zeouane.org wrote:
> Le 03 Nov 2002 20:55:48 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Zeouane Abuse Desk
>
> AOL didn't write it, Jigsaw ... the zeouane abuse desk did. Silly boy.
...And who is the zeouane abuse desk? Shall we tell him?
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnasb40e.i6a.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 03 Nov 2002 20:55:48 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
> Zeouane Abuse Desk
AOL didn't write it, Jigsaw ... the zeouane abuse desk did. Silly boy.
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
Hmmmmmm.. now who would that be.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 11/3/2002 6:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <jonathan-C9DF6C...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
In article <slrnasb40e.i6a.p...@lievre.voute.net>,
pasdespa...@zeouane.org wrote:
> Le 03 Nov 2002 20:55:48 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > Zeouane Abuse Desk
>
> AOL didn't write it, Jigsaw ... the zeouane abuse desk did. Silly boy.
...And who is the zeouane abuse desk? Shall we tell him?
Mr Q. Z. D
===============================
Hmmmm...let me think a moment....could it be.....naw....its...its.... why its
Dezi.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 11/3/2002 6:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <slrnasbbh9.lqu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le Sun, 03 Nov 2002 23:13:34 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>> > Zeouane Abuse Desk
>> AOL didn't write it, Jigsaw ... the zeouane abuse desk did. Silly boy.
> ...And who is the zeouane abuse desk? Shall we tell him?
Fuck, did you have to do that ?? I was having fun ... :-(
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
Impersonating someone for AOL is a pretty serious offence Dezi.
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <slrnasbe2g.msu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
Le 03 Nov 2002 23:58:39 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
{ snip }
>> ...And who is the zeouane abuse desk? Shall we tell him?
> Hmmmm...let me think a moment....could it be.....naw....its...its.... why its
> Dezi.
The real fun starts now, when you try to convince all of AADP that you're not
borderline vegetative coma, and that you 'knew' all along ...
Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1
===============================
The "Zeouane.org" was the giveaway.
A Planet Visitor
> Le 03 Nov 2002 14:56:32 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> 'I cream in my pants when they execute a dumbfuck nigga fry black fucker,
> >
> > Click here, Jigsaw: mailto:ab...@zeouane.org. *snigger*
>
> > done.... but just to make you happy.
>
>
) There is a prohibition on speaking as a holocaust
denier. No such prohibition exists in the U.S. And in fact,
some French have been charged with that 'crime' and have
been beaten by street mobs for speaking of it (not that I
agree with the conclusion they form, but simply that it
is certainly abridging free expression). I refer to France's
Fabius-Gayssot law of July 13, 1990, which makes it a crime
to "contest" the "crimes against humanity" as defined by the
Nuremberg International Military Tribunal of 1945-46. Both
Le Pen and Robert Faurisson have been convicted under that
law. And Faurisson has been the victim of numerous physical
attacks. There is a certain 'smelly' flavor to prohibiting such
free expression, regardless of how disgusting that expression
is... since it tends to lend credence to such expression, by the
very fact it is prohibited. When people are told 'you cannot speak
of this,' people begin to wonder WHY?
2) Then we have the book 'Le Grand Secret,' by Dr. Claude Gubler,
relating the medical problems of Mitterand that was totally banned
from publication and distribution within France, with penalties
provided for those who held copies. Unfortunately for those censors,
the text was provided free on the Internet, and two mushroomed up
for every one that France shut down. The first page of the Book
contained an explicit WARNING -- ATTENTION! Ce livre est interdit
en France! WARNING! This book is banned in France! You will
find no ban on books which report on the medical conditions of any
U.S. government officials.
3) Then we have the recent French elections. The French voter
was prohibited from entering the voting booth with anything that
would express dissatisfaction of the choices offered. For
example - NO GLOVES - NO CLOTHES PINS on the nose.
Nothing of that sort. Police were standing by to immediately
arrest anyone trying to express such dissatisfaction, claiming
it to be a violation of the Election Law Secrecy Act Article 59.
The French government alerted 2500 magistrates to immediately
judge such acts which are punishable under Article 113 of that
code, with fines from 2,000 to 2,500 Euros, and up to a year in
jail. You will find that a voter can freely express his dissatisfaction
as to the choices offered in elections in the U.S.
So do not delude yourself that freedom of expression is really
free in France, if the French government decides that it is not in
the government's best interests to allow such freedom of
expression (so much for the country that brought forth Voltaire,
and others).
PV
> --
> Rev. Desmond Coughlan |Great White Father of the
|Universal Right to Life Church
|of AADP -- 'all Black starving
|children in Africa not admitted'
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:50:11 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> ... lest it be claimed that murderers 'always get out' to kill again ...
> >>
> >> url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2381449.stm
>
> > No one ever said that murderers 'always' get out, desi.
>
LOL... the 'master of moronic pedantry,' will ALWAYS BE YOUR
TITLE, desi. Mine was a clear statement of fact, since you can offer
no evidence that anyone HAS said that 'murderers always get out.'
And you fully admit that in your [2], below. Thus, mine was simply
a 'statement of fact.'
> The
> fuckwit who says that O.J. Simpson 'WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil
> court' [1], and who then tries to pass off his towering stupidity by
> claiming, 'I didn't say that he WAS [sic] convicted, only that he WAS
> [sic] found guilty !!' LOL !!
>
Ah yes... the 'master of moronic pedantry.' Yes, desi... you have sucked the
last bit of lies out of that, by implying I used the words 'guilty of murder.'
In fact, I fully agree that I misused the word 'guilty' when it should have
been 'liable,' since only liability can be determined in a civil trial. But it
did NOT imply 'guilty of murder.' Perhaps you could explain how you
presumed that Judge Zobel did not have the power to overturn the sentence
of the 'Great White Whale'? Or how you are both 'for' and 'against'
punishment, and both 'for' and 'against' life imprisonment, and both
'fear,' and 'do not fear,' death?
> On Planet Fuckwit, 'conviction' != 'found guilty'. Of course, here on
> planet earth, we know that if someone is 'found guilty' of an offence,
> then he has been 'convicted' of that offence.
>
???????????????? Jesus, desi, at least TRY to make sense! That
particular comment could have been written by Jürgen.
> Thus to say, 'he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil court', is the same as
> saying, 'he WAS [sic] convicted in a civil court'.
>
> Still, I digress.
Don't you always? Although others call it 'regress.' Into some hebephrenic
(look it up) defect that insists you offer comments that should have been
left behind sometime before entering puberty.
> The opportunity to rub LDB's nose in the pongy crud,
> 'repleat' (sic) with spelling errors, grammatical clangers, logical gaffes,
> emotional blackmail, threats, incitement to commit murder, geographical
> fuck-ups, and downright dishonesty that is his posting history, was too
> tempting to pass up.
>
See what I mean??? Not one meaningful word within the entire turgid.
monotonous and lengthy sentence.
> Getting back to the topic of this particular thread, LDB would have us
> believe that as no deathie has uttered the words, 'murderers always get out
> to kill again' (and indeed, a google search for this string, comes up
> empty-handed [2]), this is 'proof' that no deathie 'thinks' (sic) it.
>
If you read my words, they say "No one ever said..." You simply work
to prove my point... which is what you usually do.
> Yet news:alt.activism.death-penalty is 'repleat' (sic) with posts by
> various deathies both current and past, who have posted variants on the
> theme, 'If we don't execute them, they'll get out to come to YOUR [sic]
> neighborhood [sic] and kill YOUR [sic] children !'
>
GIMMICK #1 -- desi not only is pedantic.. but INVENTS pedantic arguments.
In point of fact, most of the 'arguments' in this respect have generally
revolved around the abolitionist view of 'what if YOU were the possible
innocent executed?' Ignoring completely the fact that many convicted
murderers have murdered again.
> Similar examples would be to claim that as no deathie has posted the words,
> 'I cream in my pants when they execute a dumbfuck nigga fry black fucker,
> fry !!' [3] on this newsgroup, means that 98.7% of them [4] aren't saying
> it outside the group, in real life.
>
> In short, ladies, gentlemen, and deathies: my obsessive stalker puppet,
> is lying yet again.
>
> Or should that be 'still' ?
Your words again betray you as the racist you are. There is a certain
satisfaction that we all see coming from YOU, when you USE those
words, desi. You ENJOY using them, as you have so many other racist
phrases. As you ENJOY posting pictures of dead and decayed bodies.
And you giggle and appear to do an Irish Jig, every time you 'report' on
a tragedy.
>
> { snip remainder of stock LDB baloney }
>
We well know what that translates into -- 'desi bangs forehead against
desk.'
> [1]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.
tampabay.rr.com
> [2]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=murderers%20always%20get%20out%20to%20kill%20again&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=al
t.activism.death-penalty&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2002&hl=en
> [3]
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+%22I+cream+in+my+pants+when+they+execute+a+dumb+fuck+nigg
a%2C+fry+black+fucker%2C+fry+%21%21%22+group%3Aalt.activism.death-penalty&btnG=Google+Search
> [4] source: gallup poll in the Dallas Evening News, 24 January 2000
This is one of the posts that cause us first to laugh in respect to the
hypocrisy of desi... and then to weep over the obvious fact that he is
a racist. He USES [2] and [3], as google references to demonstrate
that those phrases do not exist in google, but HIDES HIS OWN WORDS
from that archive. Thus quite possibly HE has said those phrases, but
has deviously hidden them.
There is no longer any doubt that desi has gone over the edge. He writes
the most disgusting prose -- beginnning with "I cream in my pants when
they execute...," and then presumes that OTHERS 'think it,' when it is
obvious that it CAME FROM HIS MIND, since he admits that no one has
ever said it in this group. Thus HE IS THE FIRST TO THINK IT. And can
only pathetically offer 'proof' through a media that he himself HIDES FROM.
PV
> --
> Ayatollah Desmond Coughlan |Superlunary and Most Exalted
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 23:59:12 +0000
>
>Le 03 Nov 2002 23:58:39 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> ...And who is the zeouane abuse desk? Shall we tell him?
>
>> Hmmmm...let me think a moment....could it be.....naw....its...its.... why
>its
>> Dezi.
>
>The real fun starts now, when you try to convince all of AADP that you're not
>borderline vegetative coma, and that you 'knew' all along ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 23:59:12 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnasbe2g.msu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <jonathan-C9DF6C...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><20021103185839...@mb-cj.aol.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 1036368091 6693384 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 23:15:53 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 03 Nov 2002 23:13:34 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>
>>> > Zeouane Abuse Desk
>
>>> AOL didn't write it, Jigsaw ... the zeouane abuse desk did. Silly boy.
>
>> ...And who is the zeouane abuse desk? Shall we tell him?
>
>Fuck, did you have to do that ?? I was having fun ... :-(
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 23:15:53 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <slrnasbbh9.lqu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasas9n.hg6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103155548...@mb-fb.aol.com>
><slrnasb40e.i6a.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><jonathan-C9DF6C...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>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 1036365733 4962971 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:23:01 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:17:37 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
><pasdespa...@zeouane.org> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> 'I cream in my pants when they execute a dumbfuck nigga fry black fucker,
>
>Click here, Jigsaw: mailto:ab...@zeouane.org. *snigger*
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:23:01 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 12
>Message-ID: <slrnasaca5.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnas5mvv.j27.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><7QIw9.213377$S8.39...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnasac00.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>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 1036333521 6400109 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:55:51 +0000
>
>Le 03 Nov 2002 18:53:49 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> What _are_ you wittering on about, you retard (think 'relative' ...) ?
>
>> Are you going to give me permission or not???
>
>Post whatever you like, man. AOL haven't written to me, so why should I
>bother ?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>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.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!open
transit.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: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:55:51 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 15
>Message-ID: <slrnasas9n.hg6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasanlv.gmh.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103135349...@mb-fh.aol.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 1036349952 6690769 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:07:26 +0000
>
>Le 03 Nov 2002 20:55:48 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Zeouane Abuse Desk
>
>AOL didn't write it, Jigsaw ... the zeouane abuse desk did. Silly boy.
>
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:07:26 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 13
>Message-ID: <slrnasb40e.i6a.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasas9n.hg6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103155548...@mb-fb.aol.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 1036357796 6720784 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 17:37:03 +0000
>
>Le 03 Nov 2002 16:37:07 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>>> Don't be an idiot, Jigsaw. France still has the right to free expression.
>
>> Want to discuss the message AOL sent you by E-Mail. Do you mind if I
>publish it
>> here?
>
>What _are_ you wittering on about, you retard (think 'relative' ...) ?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>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.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news
feed.freenet.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: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 17:37:03 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 13
>Message-ID: <slrnasanlv.gmh.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasaemc.fln.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103113707...@mb-mh.aol.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 1036345334 6589018 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 15:03:41 +0000
>
>Le 03 Nov 2002 14:56:32 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> 'I cream in my pants when they execute a dumbfuck nigga fry black fucker,
>>
>> Click here, Jigsaw: mailto:ab...@zeouane.org. *snigger*
>
>> Geez Dezi, I always knew you had a profound self-destructive bent. Consider
>it
>> done.... but just to make you happy.
>
>Don't be an idiot, Jigsaw. France still has the right to free expression.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 15:03:41 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 17
>Message-ID: <slrnasaemc.fln.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasaca5.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103095632...@mb-cf.aol.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 1036335957 6614192 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:05:22 +0000
>
>Le 03 Nov 2002 20:57:42 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> OK. Here is what AOL sent me. Who is lying? You or them?
>>
>> Subj: Re: Offensive Statement.
>> Date: 11/3/2002 10:02:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> From: ab...@zeouane.org
>
>Do you see 'from AOL' in there, Jigsaw ?
>
>More to the point, why the hell would AOL 'warn' me about anything ? I'm
>not one of their customers, and they thus have _zero_ power to terminate
>my account.
>
>Now run along and smoke some more of that weed.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>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.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news
feed.freenet.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: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:05:22 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <slrnasb3si.i6a.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasas9n.hg6.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103155742...@mb-fb.aol.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 1036357794 6720784 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:17:37 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 02 Nov 2002 04:50:11 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> ... lest it be claimed that murderers 'always get out' to kill again ...
>>>
>>> url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2381449.stm
>
>> No one ever said that murderers 'always' get out, desi.
>
>More moronic pedantry from the master of Proactive Stupidity. The
>fuckwit who says that O.J. Simpson 'WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil
>court' [1], and who then tries to pass off his towering stupidity by
>claiming, 'I didn't say that he WAS [sic] convicted, only that he WAS
>[sic] found guilty !!' LOL !!
>
>On Planet Fuckwit, 'conviction' != 'found guilty'. Of course, here on
>planet earth, we know that if someone is 'found guilty' of an offence,
>then he has been 'convicted' of that offence.
>
>Thus to say, 'he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil court', is the same as
>saying, 'he WAS [sic] convicted in a civil court'.
>
>Still, I digress. The opportunity to rub LDB's nose in the pongy crud,
>'repleat' (sic) with spelling errors, grammatical clangers, logical gaffes,
>emotional blackmail, threats, incitement to commit murder, geographical
>fuck-ups, and downright dishonesty that is his posting history, was too
>tempting to pass up.
>
>Getting back to the topic of this particular thread, LDB would have us
>believe that as no deathie has uttered the words, 'murderers always get out
>to kill again' (and indeed, a google search for this string, comes up
>empty-handed [2]), this is 'proof' that no deathie 'thinks' (sic) it.
>
>Yet news:alt.activism.death-penalty is 'repleat' (sic) with posts by
>various deathies both current and past, who have posted variants on the
>theme, 'If we don't execute them, they'll get out to come to YOUR [sic]
>neighborhood [sic] and kill YOUR [sic] children !'
>
>Similar examples would be to claim that as no deathie has posted the words,
>'I cream in my pants when they execute a dumbfuck nigga fry black fucker,
>fry !!' [3] on this newsgroup, means that 98.7% of them [4] aren't saying
>it outside the group, in real life.
>
>In short, ladies, gentlemen, and deathies: my obsessive stalker puppet,
>is lying yet again.
>
>Or should that be 'still' ?
>
>{ snip remainder of stock LDB baloney }
>
>[1]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>[2]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=murderers%20always%20get%20out
%20to%20kill%20again&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=alt.activism.death-penalty&lr
=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=10&as_max
y=2002&hl=en
>[3]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+%22I+cream
+in+my+pants+when+they+execute+a+dumb+fuck+nigga%2C+fry+black+fucker%2C+fr
y+%21%21%22+group%3Aalt.activism.death-penalty&btnG=Google+Search
>[4] source: gallup poll in the Dallas Evening News, 24 January 2000
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:17:37 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 57
>Message-ID: <slrnasac00.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnas5mvv.j27.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><7QIw9.213377$S8.39...@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 1036333335 6495870 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:33:03 +0000
>
>Le 03 Nov 2002 23:59:28 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Impersonating someone for AOL is a pretty serious offence Dezi.
>
>LOL ... yes, punishable by immediate incarceration in a psychiatric
>institution.
>
>Jigsaw ... read the fucking headers of the e-mail that 'ab...@zeouane.org'
>sent you ... _nowhere_ does it claim to be from AOL.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>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!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-ber
lin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:33:03 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnasc54v.7c.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasbbh9.lqu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103185928...@mb-cj.aol.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 1036391841 6922964 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:38:05 +0000
>
>Le 04 Nov 2002 01:34:18 GMT, JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> a écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> The real fun starts now, when you try to convince all of AADP that you're
>not
>>> borderline vegetative coma, and that you 'knew' all along ...
>
>> The "Zeouane.org" was the giveaway.
>
>Sure it was, Jigsaw. Which is why you sent an e-mail to 'ab...@zeouane.org',
>entitled 'Offensive Statement by Desmond Coughlan'.
>
>I heard the 'You have new mail', and opened my mail client. When I saw your
>name, I thought that you had written to me privately to complain about my
>language. Imagine my surprise when I saw the 'To: ' line as above. I
>thought, 'Jesus, he did it !!'
>
>In truth, you fell for the 'sting', just as you did with the 'Forum des
>Images Sting', which has now entered usenet history as a classic of the
>genre.
>
>You never learn, man ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>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!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-ber
lin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:38:05 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 27
>Message-ID: <slrnasc5ed.7c.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasbe2g.msu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103203419...@mb-fh.aol.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 1036392142 6823327 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:20:59 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:14:22 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Don't be an idiot, Jigsaw. France still has the right to free expression.
>
>> Not true at all -- France has gross restrictions of 'free expression.'
>>
>> ) There is a prohibition on speaking as a holocaust
>> denier. No such prohibition exists in the U.S. And in fact,
>> some French have been charged with that 'crime' and have
>> been beaten by street mobs for speaking of it (not that I
>> agree with the conclusion they form, but simply that it
>> is certainly abridging free expression). I refer to France's
>> Fabius-Gayssot law of July 13, 1990,
>
>There is a saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and
>I can but note that it appears to be even more dangerous in the hands
>of thick cunts like you. However, as you are obviously hung up on
>somehow, just once, scoring a point over your two tormentors, dirt and
>me, and as this 'France penis-envy' seems to be taking over your life
>(this Fabius-Gayssot law mentioned eleven times so far [1]), I decided
>to respond to this blatant cry for attention. It also gives me an excuse
>to come back to texts which I have not read for a couple of years, as my
>main areas of interest are in Constitutional law and criminal law.
>
>> which makes it a crime to "contest" the "crimes against humanity" as
>defined
>> by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal of 1945-46.
>
>Such sophistry becomes you, dear. 'as defined by the Nuremberg International
>Military Tribunal of 1945-46' ?
>
>What you neglect to tell your 'gentle reader[s]', is that this law (90-615,
>to
>give it its 'official' name) was not just a result of the 'Nuremberg
>International Military Tribunal of 1945-46', but that it bases many of its
>provisions on the Charter signed in San Francisco in 1945, the aim of which
>was
>that all nations would work to outlaw racial discrimination. 21 years later,
>it was the turn of the United Nations in New York, to pass a resolution
>aiming
>for the eradication of discrimination based on race.
>
>So the 'restriction on free speech' has its origins in a much more internat-
>ional context than you would have us believe. Stupidity, or dishonesty ?
>It's hard to tell with you nowadays.
>
>The French Declaration of The Rights of Man of 1789, Article II of the
>Constitution of 1946, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and
>the current Constitution of the Fifth Republic, which is based on the
>Declaration [2], state clearly ...
>
> 'the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the
> most precious rights available to men' (article XI)
>
>The first main 'attack' on this right came in 1881, with restrictions
>on the freedom of the press, to publish derogatory racialist statements.
>Since then, in 1972, 1990, and 1994, have seen the strengthening of the
>'arsenal' of laws to protect minorities. To protect, yes, because whilst
>your I Amendment certainly guarantees you the right to say whatever you
>want, irrespective of how offensive your words may be, it does nothing to
>protect the persons who may find themselves victim of such propos. Do not
>forget that much of what Europe lived under Nazism for six years, and that
>ultra right-wing governments were in place even before Hitler's rise. It
>is hardly surprising if this experience made Europeans wary of unbridled
>'rights' to spread hatred.
>
>It is said that my rights end where yours begin. I enjoy constitutionally
>protected free speech, but only insofar as that right does not violate
>your rights.
>
>It is a tricky compromise for which to aim, but I prefer that system to the
>'anything goes' mentality in the United States. Unfettered rights are _not_
>constructive, as the rampant abuses and bloodshed shown by the 'artistic
>interpretations' of your I, II, VIII, and XIV Amendments, prove.
>
>{ snip }
>
>> 2) Then we have the book 'Le Grand Secret,' by Dr. Claude Gubler,
>> relating the medical problems of Mitterand that was totally banned
>> from publication and distribution within France, with penalties
>> provided for those who held copies. Unfortunately for those censors,
>
>More sophistry. Ah, hell, let's call a spade a spade. You're a lying
>sack o' shit, LDB. Either that, or you don't know 'censorship' means.
>The book _Le Grand Secret_ was not banned by the government, but was
>withdrawn from sale after a _private_ legal action was undertaken by the
>Mitterand family. A private legal action does not constitute 'official
>censorship' anymore than a writ for libel constitutes 'official
>censorship'. One only need consider the fact that the judgement in the case
>was delivered by the I _Civil_ Chamber at Paris Central Court [3], to know
>that the government did not involve itself. Indeed, the book was published
>on 16 January 1996, Monsieur Mitterand in fact had died eight days earlier,
>and had been out of government since 7 May 1995 [4].
>
>So to claim that our government is somehow 'stifling' free speech is about
>as ridiculous a claim as you've yet made.
>
>> the text was provided free on the Internet, and two mushroomed up
>> for every one that France shut down. The first page of the Book
>> contained an explicit WARNING -- ATTENTION! Ce livre est interdit
>> en France! WARNING! This book is banned in France! You will
>> find no ban on books which report on the medical conditions of any
>> U.S. government officials.
>
>Nor will you find any in France, unless they threaten national security.
>Freedom of expression is a constitutionally guaranteed right in France.
>
>> 3) Then we have the recent French elections. The French voter
>> was prohibited from entering the voting booth with anything that
>> would express dissatisfaction of the choices offered. For
>> example - NO GLOVES - NO CLOTHES PINS on the nose.
>> Nothing of that sort. Police were standing by to immediately
>> arrest anyone trying to express such dissatisfaction, claiming
>> it to be a violation of the Election Law Secrecy Act Article 59.
>> The French government alerted 2500 magistrates to immediately
>> judge such acts which are punishable under Article 113 of that
>> code, with fines from 2,000 to 2,500 Euros, and up to a year in
>> jail. You will find that a voter can freely express his dissatisfaction
>> as to the choices offered in elections in the U.S.
>
>Whilst it is plain that you read somewhere about 'Article 59', or 'Article
>113'
>of the 'Election Law Secrecy Act' (sic), one would have imagined that you
>would
>have sought to educate yourself a little more, before trying to make yourself
>look 'erudite'. Maybe even an unread URL, would have made you look less like
>a
>fool. What about a quotation from Tennyson, whom you have never read, but
>whom
>you like to quote, claiming, 'I LOVE [sic] Tennyson !' ?
>
>Still, if you were less stupid, I wouldn't derive such an exquisite, selfless
>and altruistic pleasure at educating you. So let's begin.
>
>First, the Code to which you refer is not the 'Election Law Secrecy Act'.
>There is no such Code in French jurisprudence. The Code is in fact known as
>the 'Code Électoral' ('the Electoral Code') [5]. Nowhere in the title does
>the
>word 'secrecy' appear. Still, your use of it serves your purpose, which is
>to
>convince the undecided that France stifles the liberty of expression. In
>short, to make people believe your lies.
>
>The first article to which you refer, '59' (sic) is in fact Article L-59,
>in other words, part of the legislative section of the Code Électoral (hence
>the 'L'). That Article contains one sentence, and one sentence only, and
>that is ...
>
> 'Le scrutin est secret.'
>
>That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It states quite simply that the
>right
>of every citizen to choose freely his government, shall not be impeded by
>having to reveal his choice. It also makes sure that situations such as
>those
>that exist in the United Kingdom, cannot happen here, where each ballot paper
>has a number, which is entered in an official record of voting, thus ensuring
>that any person's voting choice is part of official records, and can be used
>against him. The ballot paper in France bears no markings whatsoever (unless
>they're in invisible ink), which would allow the government to know who
>voted for whom.
>
>Coming to the second Article you mentioned, L-113, we find the following
>text in French ...
>
> 'En dehors des cas spécialement prévus par les dispositions
> des lois et décrets en vigueur, quiconque, soit dans une commission
> administrative ou municipale, soit dans un bureau de vote ou dans
> les bureaux des mairies, des préfectures ou sous-préfectures, avant,
> pendant ou après un scrutin, aura, par inobservation volontaire de
> la loi ou des arrêtés préfectoraux, ou par tous autres actes
> frauduleux. violé ou tenté de violer le secret du vote, porté
> atteinte ou tenté de porter atteinte à sa sincérité, empêché ou
> tenté d'empêcher les opérations du scrutin, ou qui en aura changé
> ou tenté de changer le résultat, sera puni d'une amende de 100 000 F
> et d'un emprisonnement d'un an ou de l'une de ces deux peines
> seulement. Si le coupable est fonctionnaire de l'ordre
> administratif ou judiciaire, agent ou préposé du gouvernement ou
> d'une administration publique, ou chargé d'un ministère de service
> public ou président d'un bureau de vote, la peine sera portée au
> double.'
>
>Which I translate as [6] ...
>
> 'Other than in cases for which separate legislation or decrees have
> been enacted, any person who during an election, be it in a voting
> office, or in a town hall, a préfecture or sub-préfecture, before,
> during, or after the voting process, deliberately seeks to violate
> the law or laws, or who seeks to act in a fraudulent manner in
> order to violate the principal of the secret ballot, or who seeks
> to alter the lawful result of said ballot, will be liable to a
> term of imprisonment not exceeding one year, a fine of 100,000 F [7],
> or one of these sentences. If the person found guilty is a civil
> servant with responsibility for the proper execution of the ballot
> process, the above sentence will be doubled.' [8]
>
>Now you're an idiot. You're an idiot because ... well, because I said so,
>but
>in this case, you're a lying idiot because you're seeking to 'bluff' the
>uninitiated into thinking that our freedoms are non-existent. One would
>imagine that with Earl, Donna, and me here, you would know better than to
>attempt such deception. Of course, if you repeat a lie often enough, a lot
>of
>people will start to believe it, which probably means that soon, we're going
>to
>see responses from Jigsaw, along the lines of 'Ur friidums in france are not
>like wot us has in Amerika, Dezi'.
>
>The atmosphere in France in April of this year was that a neo-Nazi had, by
>a quirk of the election process, come within a whisker of the Elysée Palace
>[9]
>and the presidency. The entire Republic was in danger. Make no mistake
>that if the racist scumbag that is Jean Marie le Pen had become President,
>the effects on France and Europe would have been cataclysmic. Many of his
>policies (those that were not laughably unworkable) were quite frankly
>unconsitutional, and their implementation would have left le Pen no choice
>but to revoke the Constitution. There was talk of Chirac invoking Article
>XVI [10], giving himself emergency powers, and suspending the Constitution,
>in the event of a victory for the National Front. I would personally have
>been in favour of such a course of action: when the course of democracy
>endangers the very existence of the republican traditions of tolerance,
>freedom, equality under the law, and respect for the human rights of each and
>every one of us, then extreme measures are called for. I am on record as to
>my opinions of 'democracy', so shan't go into them here.
>
>Between the two rounds of the French Presidential elections this year, the
>choice was clear: vote Chirac, or risk fascist scum running the country.
>To many, this was a matter of the lesser of two evils, and they did not
>hesitate to vote for Chirac. In order to protest at this, many wanted to
>wear a clothes pin on their nose, or to wear gloves, to demonstrate their
>disgust at having to vote for a (let's not be churlish) crook. The archives
>of newsgroups like news:soc.culture.french [11], and of news:soc.politique.fr
>[12] are filled with articles from these people.
>
>It is in this context that the Code Électoral was used, as such
>demonstrations
>are simply not becoming of a process that a great number of French people
>regard as a solemn and dignified event. People died for that right, and
>to disregard it, is regarded by many (me included) as borderline criminal.
>
>That about does it for the context in which the threat of prosecution under
>the Code Électoral is concerned. In short, the right to free expression
>was _only_ being 'curtailed' inside the voting booths, in order to
>safeguard the dignity and solemnity of the electoral process. Once outside
>the voting booth, there is absolutely no law or Code which can prevent you
>from wearing gloves, wearing a clothes pin on your nose, or talking to
>the television cameras, and telling them how you voted. A right which many
>exercised.
>
>An analogy which strikes me as quite appropriate in this case, are the
>'rights' [13] guaranteed to you by the II Amemdment. What do you think
>would happen if you went to Washington, and decided to go on a tour of
>the White House, carrying your pistol ? The answer is plain: you would be
>arrested, and you would only be allowed to take the tour once your weapon
>had been removed.
>
>May we then take it that you would sue the federal government for having
>'violated your rights' ? What about carrying your firearm onto a
>aeroplane, to visit friends in California ? After all, your II Amendment
>pseudo-rights allow you to carry guns, don't they ?
>
>In France, as in the United States, rights have to be balanced against
>responsibilities. You cannot carry a loaded weapon into the White House,
>and I cannot violate the secrecy of the ballot process. Rights and
>responsibilities. Your rights end where those of others begin.
>
>> So do not delude yourself that freedom of expression is really
>> free in France, if the French government decides that it is not in
>> the government's best interests to allow such freedom of
>> expression (so much for the country that brought forth Voltaire,
>> and others).
>
>To sum up, I can only imagine that this belief in the suppression or the
>restriction of free speech in France, just like Mark's oft-repeated (but
>never justified) claim that we must carry 'papers' on us at all times, is
>borne of ignorance. Both are quite simply false. Both are quite easily
>refuted.
>
>
>[1]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Fabius&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=a
lt.activism.death-penalty&as_uauthors=Planet&lr=&hl=fr
>[2] url:http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp
>[3]
>url:http://www.humanite.presse.fr/journal/1996/1996-09/1996-09-12/1996-09
-12-040.html
>[4]
>url:http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/dossier_actualite/presidentiel
les/scrutin.shtml
>[5]
>url:http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/RechercheSimpleCode?commun=CELEC
T&code=
>[6] with apologies for any spelling errors
>[7] 15,244 EUR
>[8] the official website (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/) has links for the
> codes in English, German, and Spanish, but they don't work in my browser
>[9] url:http://www.elysee.fr/
>[10]
>url:http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/constitution/constitution2.htm#titre2
>[11]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=soc.culture.f
rench&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=21&as_minm=4&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=5&as_maxm=5&
as_maxy=2002&hl=fr
>[12]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=fr.soc.politi
que&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=21&as_minm=4&as_miny=2002&as_maxd=5&as_maxm=5&as
_maxy=2002&hl=fr
>[13] no human being has the 'right' to carry a firearm, of course. The
>'right'
> to bear arms is in fact a privilege which has been codified into the
> Constitution of the United States, and which has thus become a sort of
> 'pseudo-right'. Yes, I like that. A 'pseudo-right'.
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:20:59 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 285
>Message-ID: <slrnasd7jb.3fb.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasaca5.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103095632...@mb-cf.aol.com>
><slrnasaemc.fln.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><2Kkx9.113551$r7.21...@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 1036427003 7388379 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-Feedback: http://www.zeouane.org/feedback.html
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:14:22 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
>
> > Not true at all -- France has gross restrictions of 'free expression.'
> >
> > ) There is a prohibition on speaking as a holocaust
> > denier. No such prohibition exists in the U.S. And in fact,
> > some French have been charged with that 'crime' and have
> > been beaten by street mobs for speaking of it (not that I
> > agree with the conclusion they form, but simply that it
> > is certainly abridging free expression). I refer to France's
> > Fabius-Gayssot law of July 13, 1990,
>
> I can but note that it appears to be even more dangerous in the hands
> of thick cunts like you.
What is even more dangerous is presuming that your knowledge
can override logic, and common sense. That is YOUR problem.
> However, as you are obviously hung up on
> somehow, just once, scoring a point over your two tormentors, dirt and
> me,
ROTFLMAO... You and dirt!!! What a team... two mules hitched to
a wagon stuck in a ditch. The both of you have become child's play,
and you have in turn been reduced to the behavior of a troll.
> and as this 'France penis-envy' seems to be taking over your life
> (this Fabius-Gayssot law mentioned eleven times so far [1]), I decided
> to respond to this blatant cry for attention. It also gives me an excuse
> to come back to texts which I have not read for a couple of years, as my
> main areas of interest are in Constitutional law and criminal law.
>
Yeah... right up there with French Feminist Literature and Hebrew.
Certainly not including Logic, or Mathematics as any disciplines.
Nonetheless... my words are certainly true -- See
http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/hr/revisionist/Faurisson.html
Quoting -- "For making statements like these, Faurisson was first dismissed
from his academic post on grounds that should send shivers down the
spine of any civil libertarian: ". . . the authorities couldn't protect him
from his enemies" (Herman, 1993, p. 8). He was in fact physically beaten
rather severely by anti-revisionists. Faurisson, his publishers, and supporters
who have distributed or promoted his materials have been tried, convicted,
fined, and barred from holding any government jobs (Le Monde, 19
September 1983).
The convictions were under the Fabius-Gayssot law of 1990, largely
written with the express intent of criminalizing Faurisson's revisionist
activities, which should also raise civil libertarian eyebrows. That law
makes it a criminal offense "to contest by any means the existence
of one or more of the crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6
of the Statutes of the International Military Tribunal, attached to the
London Agreement of August 8, 1945, committed either by the members
of an organization declared criminal in application of Article 9 of the
same Statutes, or by a person held guilty of such a crime by a French
or international jurisdiction."
Any meaningful appeal of those verdicts is therefore impossible under
French law. Faurisson and his supporters have been restricted in court
from mentioning "gas chambers" (ostensibly, the existence of which
they were convicted of questioning) and have been denied government
jobs. Le Choc du Mois ("The Shock of the Month") had to cease
operation because of the fines it repeatedly incurred in publishing
Faurisson's work."
> > which makes it a crime to "contest" the "crimes against humanity" as defined
> > by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal of 1945-46.
>
> Such sophistry becomes you, dear. 'as defined by the Nuremberg International
> Military Tribunal of 1945-46' ?
>
You neglect to mention that you 'wrote the book,' on sophistry. Jesus,
desi, look in the mirror... I have a list of about 100 'ideas' you've offered
that literally reek of 'sophistry.'
> What you neglect to tell your 'gentle reader[s]', is that this law (90-615, to
> give it its 'official' name) was not just a result of the 'Nuremberg
> International Military Tribunal of 1945-46', but that it bases many of its
> provisions on the Charter signed in San Francisco in 1945, the aim of which was
> that all nations would work to outlaw racial discrimination. 21 years later,
> it was the turn of the United Nations in New York, to pass a resolution aiming
> for the eradication of discrimination based on race.
Umm... see The Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n2p14_Weber.html
Quoting -- "France's Fabius-Gayssot law of July 13, 1990, makes it a crime
to "contest" the "crimes against humanity" as defined by the Nuremberg
International Military Tribunal of 1945-46."
>
> So the 'restriction on free speech' has its origins in a much more internat-
> ional context than you would have us believe. Stupidity, or dishonesty ?
> It's hard to tell with you nowadays.
>
Actually, it is both your stupidity and dishonesty. It would not matter
WHERE it had its origins (although you are totally wrong). It has to
do with the 'concept' of 'freedom of expression.' One could take it back
much further, but the three examples I provided demonstrate LIMITATIONS
on 'freedom of expression.' Which you claimed DO NOT EXIST in
France.
> The French Declaration of The Rights of Man of 1789, Article II of the
> Constitution of 1946, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and
> the current Constitution of the Fifth Republic, which is based on the
> Declaration [2], state clearly ...
>
> 'the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the
> most precious rights available to men' (article XI)
>
Yes, it is... which brings up the question of 'why does France
deny the freedom of expression to those ideas and opinions it
prohibits?'
> The first main 'attack' on this right came in 1881, with restrictions
> on the freedom of the press, to publish derogatory racialist statements.
> Since then, in 1972, 1990, and 1994, have seen the strengthening of the
> 'arsenal' of laws to protect minorities. To protect, yes, because whilst
> your I Amendment certainly guarantees you the right to say whatever you
> want, irrespective of how offensive your words may be, it does nothing to
> protect the persons who may find themselves victim of such propos. Do not
> forget that much of what Europe lived under Nazism for six years,
No shit!! As I recall you said that Europe "in matters of morals, has led the
world for over two thousand years." I can thus presume you found Nazism to
be a 'moral' six years.
> and that
> ultra right-wing governments were in place even before Hitler's rise. It
> is hardly surprising if this experience made Europeans wary of unbridled
> 'rights' to spread hatred.
>
> It is said that my rights end where yours begin. I enjoy constitutionally
> protected free speech, but only insofar as that right does not violate
> your rights.
>
And prohibiting speaking of aspects of the holocaust that are
denied, somehow violates MY rights? Get real.
> It is a tricky compromise for which to aim, but I prefer that system to the
> 'anything goes' mentality in the United States. Unfettered rights are _not_
> constructive, as the rampant abuses and bloodshed shown by the 'artistic
> interpretations' of your I, II, VIII, and XIV Amendments, prove.
>
That is all just hypocritical ravings. There is no 'violation of MY
rights' by someone speaking of a denial of the holocaust. Nor of
your rights. It is simply a denial of THEIR rights. I do not agree
with even one snippet of what they say... but I would defend that
they have a 'right' to say it. Simply because when we STIFLE
'free speech,' we lend some credence to what we have prohibited.
I don't really CARE about your 'tricky compromise,' the fact IS
that it IS a LIMIT on 'freedom of expression.' In fact, you SUPPORT
that limit on 'freedom of expression,' in your very argument.
> { snip }
>
> > 2) Then we have the book 'Le Grand Secret,' by Dr. Claude Gubler,
> > relating the medical problems of Mitterand that was totally banned
> > from publication and distribution within France, with penalties
> > provided for those who held copies. Unfortunately for those censors,
>
> More sophistry. Ah, hell, let's call a spade a spade. You're a lying
> sack o' shit, LDB.
See above. Is this your 'word of the day'? While the rest is just more
of your GIMMICK # 8 -- meaningless kindergarten insults.
> Either that, or you don't know 'censorship' means.
> The book _Le Grand Secret_ was not banned by the government, but was
> withdrawn from sale after a _private_ legal action was undertaken by the
> Mitterand family. A private legal action does not constitute 'official
> censorship' anymore than a writ for libel constitutes 'official
> censorship'. One only need consider the fact that the judgement in the case
> was delivered by the I _Civil_ Chamber at Paris Central Court [3], to know
> that the government did not involve itself. Indeed, the book was published
> on 16 January 1996, Monsieur Mitterand in fact had died eight days earlier,
> and had been out of government since 7 May 1995 [4].
>
I don't know about France, but that which is TRUE cannot be libelous.
And public figures are quite distinct from those having a 'right to privacy.'
Public figures LOSE that right when they agree to become PUBLIC
SERVANTS. They are not required to divulge information which might
discredit them, but they cannot presume to be PROTECTED from
TRUE statements made which might discredit them.
> So to claim that our government is somehow 'stifling' free speech is about
> as ridiculous a claim as you've yet made.
>
Actually... it was a quite accurate claim.
> > the text was provided free on the Internet, and two mushroomed up
> > for every one that France shut down. The first page of the Book
> > contained an explicit WARNING -- ATTENTION! Ce livre est interdit
> > en France! WARNING! This book is banned in France! You will
> > find no ban on books which report on the medical conditions of any
> > U.S. government officials.
>
> Nor will you find any in France, unless they threaten national security.
> Freedom of expression is a constitutionally guaranteed right in France.
>
A belief in total 'Freedom of expression' in France is a huge joke.
And hiding a medical history of a public figure behind 'national
security' is an even greater joke. When Eisenhower suffered his
heart attack, his condition became known immediately.
> > 3) Then we have the recent French elections. The French voter
> > was prohibited from entering the voting booth with anything that
> > would express dissatisfaction of the choices offered. For
> > example - NO GLOVES - NO CLOTHES PINS on the nose.
> > Nothing of that sort. Police were standing by to immediately
> > arrest anyone trying to express such dissatisfaction, claiming
> > it to be a violation of the Election Law Secrecy Act Article 59.
> > The French government alerted 2500 magistrates to immediately
> > judge such acts which are punishable under Article 113 of that
> > code, with fines from 2,000 to 2,500 Euros, and up to a year in
> > jail. You will find that a voter can freely express his dissatisfaction
> > as to the choices offered in elections in the U.S.
>
> Whilst it is plain that you read somewhere about 'Article 59', or 'Article 113'
> of the 'Election Law Secrecy Act' (sic), one would have imagined that you would
> have sought to educate yourself a little more, before trying to make yourself
> look 'erudite'. Maybe even an unread URL, would have made you look less like a
> fool. What about a quotation from Tennyson, whom you have never read, but whom
> you like to quote, claiming, 'I LOVE [sic] Tennyson !' ?
>
Actually, I am more familiar with Tennyson than you can imagine... and
clearly your lack of 'intellectual capacity,' shows through each time you
speak of presuming that I lack such... with your cockeyed comment on
'pseudo-intellectualism.' You simply believe that no one sees you are
using your GIMMICK # 2 -- claiming that OTHERS lack your 'vast educational
and intellectual capacity,' while not having demonstrated even a whisper of
having such capacity of your own. But I suppose you could post in your 'fluent
Hebrew.' Other than that... your entire comment is riddled with 'mindless
drivel.'
There is no doubt that a law which prohibits actions such as I describe
is CLEARLY a law which prohibits 'freedom of expression,' which is
EXACTLY what we are speaking of. You can wiggle around all you
wish... but the fact REMAINS that it is a 'limitation' on certain
aspects of 'freedom of expression.' Nor can you even try to compare
OTHER societies, claiming that France is 'better.' Since a 'limitation'
on 'freedom of expression,' is simply that. A concept called 'freedom
of expression,' quite divorced from comparison with anything other
than that 'freedom.'
> Still, if you were less stupid, I wouldn't derive such an exquisite, selfless
> and altruistic pleasure at educating you. So let's begin.
>
If you were more clever, you would not need to resort to petty insults
presuming they make a point, when they do not. But then, if you
were 'more clever,' you would not be the desi we have come to know
and recognize.
> First, the Code to which you refer is not the 'Election Law Secrecy Act'.
> There is no such Code in French jurisprudence. The Code is in fact known as
> the 'Code Électoral' ('the Electoral Code') [5]. Nowhere in the title does the
> word 'secrecy' appear. Still, your use of it serves your purpose, which is to
> convince the undecided that France stifles the liberty of expression. In
> short, to make people believe your lies.
>
Oh.. it's SECRECY alright. And regardless of all your silly posturing,
I will bring this up AGAIN and AGAIN... each time you pathetically
speak of 'freedom of expression' in France, which EVERYONE knows
is not as 'free' as you would presume.
<clip bullshit>
> Now you're an idiot. You're an idiot because ... well, because I said so, but
> in this case, you're a lying idiot because you're seeking to 'bluff' the
> uninitiated into thinking that our freedoms are non-existent.
No... that makes you the idiot. I did not say they do not exist. I said
"France has gross restrictions of 'free expression.'" I cited three
clear examples which LIMIT, what you would call 'freedom of expression.'
Obviously, I do not imply that France is a dictatorship which provides
NO 'freedom of expression.' But you, in your idiotic fervor expect to
CHANGE that into presuming that I claim your freedoms are 'non-existent.'
It is typical of how you lie, and distort in every dialog.
> One would
> imagine that with Earl, Donna, and me here, you would know better than to
> attempt such deception. Of course, if you repeat a lie often enough, a lot of
> people will start to believe it, which probably means that soon, we're going to
> see responses from Jigsaw, along the lines of 'Ur friidums in france are not
> like wot us has in Amerika, Dezi'.
>
The deception is all yours, desi. And GIMMICK # 1 will not get you out
of that deception.
<rubbish clipped>
> That about does it for the context in which the threat of prosecution under
> the Code Électoral is concerned. In short, the right to free expression
> was _only_ being 'curtailed' inside the voting booths, in order to
> safeguard the dignity and solemnity of the electoral process.
I get it... 'curtailed' is not the same as 'limited.' You bubblehead.
> Once outside
> the voting booth, there is absolutely no law or Code which can prevent you
> from wearing gloves, wearing a clothes pin on your nose, or talking to
> the television cameras, and telling them how you voted. A right which many
> exercised.
>
> An analogy which strikes me as quite appropriate in this case, are the
> 'rights' [13] guaranteed to you by the II Amemdment. What do you think
> would happen if you went to Washington, and decided to go on a tour of
> the White House, carrying your pistol ? The answer is plain: you would be
> arrested, and you would only be allowed to take the tour once your weapon
> had been removed.
>
Jesus... you've obviously been affected by that gas they used in Russia.
It is quite one thing to wear a clothes pin, and quite another to carry a
weapon which can cause bodily harm. There is no 'freedom of expression'
to kill someone. But there certainly is, in respect to exercising displeasure
over the choices available in voting. Carrying a gun that can do bodily
harm to another is NOT 'freedom of expression.' Wearing a clothes pin
on your nose when entering a voting booth, is CLEARLY 'freedom of
expression.'
> May we then take it that you would sue the federal government for having
> 'violated your rights' ? What about carrying your firearm onto a
> aeroplane, to visit friends in California ? After all, your II Amendment
> pseudo-rights allow you to carry guns, don't they ?
>
You've completely lost it here, sport. I guess I'll just have to 'aim
a clothes pin' at you. And watch the excreta flow down your legs.
> In France, as in the United States, rights have to be balanced against
> responsibilities. You cannot carry a loaded weapon into the White House,
> and I cannot violate the secrecy of the ballot process. Rights and
> responsibilities. Your rights end where those of others begin.
>
The total absurdity of your 'comparison' demonstrates fully that
you have departed reality... totally and absolutely. The very idea
of trying to draw a comparison of a clothes pin to a firearm defies
any concept of reality.
> > So do not delude yourself that freedom of expression is really
> > free in France, if the French government decides that it is not in
> > the government's best interests to allow such freedom of
> > expression (so much for the country that brought forth Voltaire,
> > and others).
>
<clipped a bunch of meaningless references which fail totally to
address the fact that the three issues I raised, seriously undermined
any belief that there is a totality of 'freedom of expression' in France.
It is a pipe-dream... invented by someone who is clearly blind to
reality. We cannot expect a rational view from someone who has
claimed so many silly things in respect to France. Everyone here
is well aware of desi's slavish view of France, which must be seen
to cloud his judgment in all respects>
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:14:23 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> On Planet Fuckwit, 'conviction' != 'found guilty'. Of course, here on
> >> planet earth, we know that if someone is 'found guilty' of an offence,
> >> then he has been 'convicted' of that offence.
>
> > ???????????????? Jesus, desi, at least TRY to make sense! That
> > particular comment could have been written by Jürgen.
>
> the need to respond. Fortunately for the newsgroup, LDB's humiliation
> is plain for all to see. In black and white, even ...
>
You certainly didn't make any 'sense' in your words... since I have
used the word 'guilty' instead of 'liable.' You are determined, as
usual, to suck the last drop from this... but clearly you are every
bit as 'guilty' in respect to speaking shit. Most especially in your
argument (sic) that Judge Zobel did not have the power to overturn
the guilty verdict of the 'Great White Whale.' In fact, you WENT ON
AND ON, becoming so hysterical you even e-mailed the Massachusetts
legal system. And then found yourself with tremendous egg on your
face. I immediately admitted that I should have used 'liable' instead
of 'guilty.'
Some of your words -- "Psst, LDB ? Tell us again about how O.J.
Simpson was 'convicted of murder in a civil court' ... or even better,
how Judge Zobel 'could have simply overturned' Louise Woodward's
Second-Degree Murder conviction, if he had wanted to ..."
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"The Judge was _not_ empowered to 'overturn' the verdict. All he
could do was to reduce it to manslaughter. Which is what he did."
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"This is plainly not the case. Rule 25(b)(2) allows a trial judge, to
_reduce_ the verdict, but not to overturn it."
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"If the defence had asked Zobel to deliver his ruling wearing eyeshadow
and pink polka dot pyjamas, suspended upside down from Air Force
One at 100 ft ASL, would LDB think that Rule 25[b][2] 'empowered'"
him to comply ?
Buzzzzz.... wrong..
You wrote --
"ROTFLMAO !!!! Did you get that in your copy of _Law for Dummies_ ?
Because a judge denies a motion, it means that he was 'empowered'
to grant it ?
Oh Lord, this is _delicious_ !!! This is _wonderful_ !!!
You idiot ... you crass, classless, profoundly dense man. Oh, I
can't stop laughing ...
Buzzzzz.... wrong... and I can't stop laughing, you crass, clueless,
classless, profoundly dense, evil little man.
And I wrote -- "Before you began slapping each other on the back in
congratulations, I think you should read my reply to your other post.
In it you will find that Judge Zobel COULD have approved a motion
which would have entered a finding of Not Guilty."
And you replied hysterically -- "Before you start making a fool of
yourself ... oops, too late ... you might like to consider what everyone
has been trying to tell you for nigh on 48 hours now, i.e. that the
ruling shows no such thing. All it shows is that the defence _asked_
Judge 'Sobel' (sic) to do that. Rule 25[b][2] doesn't allow this, and
so he had to deny the ruling."
Buzzzz... wrong. And look who made a fool of themselves.
You wrote --
"his 'come-and-spank-me' inability to digest and analyse legal
texts and decisions ... his belief that Rule 25[b][2] (which he hadn't
even _heard of_, until JPB and I gave him a 'heads-up') gave Judge Zobel
the power to overturn the second degree murder conviction, handed down in
the Commonwealth v. Woodward case."
Buzzzzz... wrong. And look who said 'come-and-spank-me.'
You wrote --
"In, fact, the beautiful 'double-whammy' that I dealt you last night, was
that I pre-empted you with Judge Zobel's ruling, and that said ruling
shows that Rule 25[b][2] only allows a judge to reduce a murder conviction
to a lesser offence."
Buzzzzz.... wrong. The 'double-whammy' backfired.
AND OOOPSSSS... here comes the 'kicker' from desi --
You crawled out of your cockroach existence and admitted --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that Judge Zobel
could not have overturned the guilty verdict, and that the only option
open to him, was to reduce the verdict of second degree murder, to a
lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was, in
fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary) quash
it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from the Massachusetts
Bar Association, would appear to confirm this view."
Buzzzz..... desi is now unmasked for the legal illiterate he is. All
those insults gone to waste, as desi realizes he has been talking
through his ass.
> 'Of course he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil court' [1]
>
Let's look at only a few more of desi's 'famous' blunders --
A) "I fear that retentionists like Richard really believe that abolitionists want
no punishments at all, for criminals."
B) "I personally shrink from the entire doctrine of 'punishment' as a tool of
crime prevention."
"(where x is the number of posts I've directed at PV, times pi, divided by
the radian of the Paris Big Wheel, add 62.5, and take away the number
I first thought of)"
A "Why not just shut down all of the nation's death rows, and
commute all of the sentences to life ?"
B) "I have stated that I am not in favour of life imprisonment without parole"
A) "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"
B) "I have personally never felt the terror of imminent death, yet I do not fear
death."
A) "the truth is that Osamo bin-Laden had absolutely nothing to do with the
events of 11 September"
B) "Mr bin Laden is apparently seen confirming that none of the terrorists
knew what was about to happen until they got onto the aircraft"
A) "The owner of one of our favourite restaurants where we used to live,
before Drewl had it firebombed, was beaten to death in 1998."
B) "Eh ? What are you talking about ? The firebombing ? I did _not_
claim that Drewl was responsible for that."
"I also speak fluent German and Hebrew."
Gee, and I was just getting started.
> Ho, ho, ho ... I don't think that I shall ever tire of reading that one.
> The 'bang !', the acrid smell of cordite, the sight of LDB hopping around
> on one foot ... pure poetry.
>
> Nor was there any use of 'quotes' (sic) either single or double, in
> keeping with LDB's rather idiotic-but-cutesy little 'modifications'
> of the rules of English punctuation. So much like his other cock-
> ups, like claiming in the same thread, '... there is no such thing as
> producing a "counter-argument," to EVIDENCE [sic].' [2], he was being
> sincere ... well as sincere as a snake-haired piece of filth can be.
>
GIMMICK # 8 -- Kindergarten insults. Without a hint of content.
> So here we go, with Spanking n° .. erm, how many now ? No matter. LDB
> has admitted that he can't count higher than two anyway.
>
> 1. LDB claims, 'Of course he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil
> court' [1].
>
> 2. It is pointed out to him that there is no such thing as being
> 'convicted in a civil court'.
>
> 3. Invoking damage limitation exercise n° 34, LDB claims that
> he hadn't said that O.J. Simpson had been 'convicted'. Only
> that he had been 'found guilty'.
>
I immediately recognized that he was found 'liable,' not 'convicted' or
'guilty.' That is the ONLY problem with my sentence.
> 4. LDB mutters under his breath, 'Oh _shit_ !' as his tormentors
> point out the obvious: that 'found guilty' and 'convicted' are
> synonyms of one another.
>
Actually, I've admitted over and over that when I wrote 'guilty'
I should have written 'liable.' Nothing else is necessary. A
person cannot be found 'guilty' or 'convicted' in a civil trial. One
can only be found 'liable.'
> 5. LDB's two chief tormentors, dirt and Des, remind LDB that
> saying 'Of course he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil court'
> is _exactly_ the same as saying, 'Of course he WAS [sic]
> [convicted] in a civil court'.
>
That may very well be, but I did not raise such an argument.
My word was 'guilty,' it should have been 'liable.' End of story.
> 6. Realising that with every post on the subject, LDB's arse was
> getting spanked harder and harder, he goes into 'when-caught-
> out-claim-to-be-trolling' mode.
>
Hardly... from the very beginning I recognized that I had misused
the terminology in a civil trial. I believe JPB was the first to mention
it, and I fully admitted I had misused the word 'guilty.'
> 7. Seeing even his usually loyal deathie colleagues staring at
> their feet in embarrassed silence, LDB falls back on his stock
> accusations that his persecutors are 'pedantic, mental, insane,
> monsters of evil'.
>
I'm glad to see you find yourself in the position of being my 'persecutor.'
It doesn't speak much for your character. Nonetheless, you are
certainly pedantic... and the other characteristics appear to demonstrate
that you know yourself only too well.
<snip 'mindless drivel'>
PV
> --
> Rt. Rev. Desmond Coughlan |Superlunary and Most Exalted
Desmond Coughlan
{ snip close to 371 lines of LDB's inane, moronic gibbering at having been
royally spanked by me yesterday }
>> First, the Code to which you refer is not the 'Election Law Secrecy Act'.
>> There is no such Code in French jurisprudence. The Code is in fact known as
>> the 'Code ?lectoral' ('the Electoral Code') [5]. Nowhere in the title does the
>> word 'secrecy' appear. Still, your use of it serves your purpose, which is to
>> convince the undecided that France stifles the liberty of expression. In
>> short, to make people believe your lies.
> Oh.. it's SECRECY alright. And regardless of all your silly posturing,
> I will bring this up AGAIN and AGAIN... each time you pathetically
> speak of 'freedom of expression' in France, which EVERYONE knows
> is not as 'free' as you would presume.
'Bring this up AGAIN [sic] and AGAIN [sic]' as much as you like, 'sport' (sic).
I have dealt with your 'points' (and I'm being generous) one by one, and have
thrashed them. You may have noticed that the X-No-Archive flag was missing
from the humungous savaging that you suffered at my hands yesterday. This
was to remove the need for me to delve into my archives the next time you
'br[ought] this up AGAIN [sic]'. All I need to do now, is to provide a
URL, and slap-a-ma-thigh, here it is 'alright' (sic)...
You're keen on the 'eye of the beholder'. Well that 'eye' has seen you be
cast down at my feet like a whimpering cur. No more needs to be said.
{ snip remainder of Saddam Hussein Special, and more denials to have incited
others to murder }
Desmond Coughlan
{ snip }
>> Gimmick n? 146, claim that 'opponent' is 'not making sense', thus negating
>> the need to respond. Fortunately for the newsgroup, LDB's humiliation
>> is plain for all to see. In black and white, even ...
{ snip LDB whittering on about my acknowledged error, despite having
said ...
'That being the case, I hope that I have as much generosity
as you now display to say no more about it.' [1]
Ho, ho, ho ... LDB _is_ feeling his buttocks being charred this week. As
John said, 'that makes Desmond a better man than you, PV [sic]'.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:31:28 +0000
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!news
feed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!new
sfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp2
12-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-m
>ail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:31:28 +0000
>Lines: 22
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <0pr8qa...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnas5mvv.j27.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><7QIw9.213377$S8.39...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnasac00.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><3Kkx9.113553$r7.21...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaseslk.7h7.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><WXLx9.126991$r7.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1036514241 7941513 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-Feedback: http://www.zeouane.org/feedback.html
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.12-20020427 ("Sugar") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:31:28 +0000
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:58:31 +0000
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:58:31 +0000
>Lines: 37
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <nam8qa....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasaca5.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103095632...@mb-cf.aol.com>
><slrnasaemc.fln.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><2Kkx9.113551$r7.21...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnasd7jb.3fb.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><bSKx9.126091$r7.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1036508535 8110840 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:26:45 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 04 Nov 2002 02:14:23 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> On Planet Fuckwit, 'conviction' != 'found guilty'. Of course, here on
>>> planet earth, we know that if someone is 'found guilty' of an offence,
>>> then he has been 'convicted' of that offence.
>
>> ???????????????? Jesus, desi, at least TRY to make sense! That
>> particular comment could have been written by Jürgen.
>
>Gimmick n° 146, claim that 'opponent' is 'not making sense', thus negating
>the need to respond. Fortunately for the newsgroup, LDB's humiliation
>is plain for all to see. In black and white, even ...
>
> 'Of course he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil court' [1]
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... I don't think that I shall ever tire of reading that one.
>The 'bang !', the acrid smell of cordite, the sight of LDB hopping around
>on one foot ... pure poetry.
>
>Nor was there any use of 'quotes' (sic) either single or double, in
>keeping with LDB's rather idiotic-but-cutesy little 'modifications'
>of the rules of English punctuation. So much like his other cock-
>ups, like claiming in the same thread, '... there is no such thing as
>producing a "counter-argument," to EVIDENCE [sic].' [2], he was being
>sincere ... well as sincere as a snake-haired piece of filth can be.
>
>So here we go, with Spanking n° .. erm, how many now ? No matter. LDB
>has admitted that he can't count higher than two anyway.
>
>1. LDB claims, 'Of course he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil
> court' [1].
>
>2. It is pointed out to him that there is no such thing as being
> 'convicted in a civil court'.
>
>3. Invoking damage limitation exercise n° 34, LDB claims that
> he hadn't said that O.J. Simpson had been 'convicted'. Only
> that he had been 'found guilty'.
>
>4. LDB mutters under his breath, 'Oh _shit_ !' as his tormentors
> point out the obvious: that 'found guilty' and 'convicted' are
> synonyms of one another.
>
>5. LDB's two chief tormentors, dirt and Des, remind LDB that
> saying 'Of course he WAS [sic] found guilty in a civil court'
> is _exactly_ the same as saying, 'Of course he WAS [sic]
> [convicted] in a civil court'.
>
>6. Realising that with every post on the subject, LDB's arse was
> getting spanked harder and harder, he goes into 'when-caught-
> out-claim-to-be-trolling' mode.
>
>7. Seeing even his usually loyal deathie colleagues staring at
> their feet in embarrassed silence, LDB falls back on his stock
> accusations that his persecutors are 'pedantic, mental, insane,
> monsters of evil'.
>
>{ snip remainder of savage, relentless, 'quick-close-the-airport!' spanking
> of almost mythical proportions }
>
>[1]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl237779726d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&selm=C4%2579.335449%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>[2]
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2365568964d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=U
TF-8&selm=Y_l89.341111%24XH.7647877%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!chi1
.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjs
erv.net!newsfeed.freenet.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: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:26:45 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 68
>Message-ID: <slrnaseslk.7h7.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnas5mvv.j27.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><7QIw9.213377$S8.39...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnasac00.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><3Kkx9.113553$r7.21...@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 1036481344 7615560 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-Feedback: http://www.zeouane.org/feedback.html
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:58:31 +0000
>
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>{ snip close to 371 lines of LDB's inane, moronic gibbering at having been
> royally spanked by me yesterday }
>
>>> First, the Code to which you refer is not the 'Election Law Secrecy Act'.
>>> There is no such Code in French jurisprudence. The Code is in fact known
>as
>>> the 'Code ?lectoral' ('the Electoral Code') [5]. Nowhere in the title
>does the
>>> word 'secrecy' appear. Still, your use of it serves your purpose, which
>is to
>>> convince the undecided that France stifles the liberty of expression. In
>>> short, to make people believe your lies.
>
>> Oh.. it's SECRECY alright. And regardless of all your silly posturing,
>> I will bring this up AGAIN and AGAIN... each time you pathetically
>> speak of 'freedom of expression' in France, which EVERYONE knows
>> is not as 'free' as you would presume.
>
>'Bring this up AGAIN [sic] and AGAIN [sic]' as much as you like, 'sport'
>(sic).
>I have dealt with your 'points' (and I'm being generous) one by one, and have
>thrashed them. You may have noticed that the X-No-Archive flag was missing
>from the humungous savaging that you suffered at my hands yesterday. This
>was to remove the need for me to delve into my archives the next time you
>'br[ought] this up AGAIN [sic]'. All I need to do now, is to provide a
>URL, and slap-a-ma-thigh, here it is 'alright' (sic)...
>
>
>url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.activism.death-penalty+au
thor:Desmond+author:Coughlan&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=slrnasd7jb.3fb.pasdes
pam_desmond%40lievre.voute.net&rnum=2
>
>
>You're keen on the 'eye of the beholder'. Well that 'eye' has seen you be
>cast down at my feet like a whimpering cur. No more needs to be said.
>
>{ snip remainder of Saddam Hussein Special, and more denials to have incited
> others to murder }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.bredband.com!br
edband!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:58:31 +0000
>Lines: 37
>Sender: Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net>
>Message-ID: <nam8qa....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnasaca5.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><20021103095632...@mb-cf.aol.com>
><slrnasaemc.fln.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><2Kkx9.113551$r7.21...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnasd7jb.3fb.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><bSKx9.126091$r7.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1036508535 8110840 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-Feedback: http://www.zeouane.org/feedback.html
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: tin/1.5.12-20020427 ("Sugar") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
>
>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: More on LWOP ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!chi1
.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjs
erv.net!newsfeed.freenet.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: More on LWOP ...
>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:26:45 +0000
>Organization: zeouane.org
>Lines: 68
>Message-ID: <slrnaseslk.7h7.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnas5mvv.j27.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><7QIw9.213377$S8.39...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnasac00.f6q.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><3Kkx9.113553$r7.21...@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 1036481344 7615560 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>Mail-Copies-To: never
>X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
>X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
>X-Feedback: http://www.zeouane.org/feedback.html
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:0pr8qa...@lievre.voute.net...
> le Tue, 05 Nov 2002 09:12:22 GMT, dans l'article <WXLx9.126991$r7.22...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, A Planet Visitor
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a dit ...
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Gimmick n? 146, claim that 'opponent' is 'not making sense', thus negating
> >> the need to respond. Fortunately for the newsgroup, LDB's humiliation
> >> is plain for all to see. In black and white, even ...
>
> { snip LDB whittering on about my acknowledged error, despite having
> said ...
>
> 'That being the case, I hope that I have as much generosity
> as you now display to say no more about it.' [1]
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1181700635d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=xVRc9.1728%24Hb4.142676%40newsfe
p2-gui
"I did not apologise. I simply stated the law as I interpreted it, and once
I obtained objective evidence that I was in error, I acknowledged that fact.
No apology was necessry, as I was arguing in good faith."
Once you said that, sport... all bets were off, since I had taken your
acknowledgement of your error as an apology.
> Ho, ho, ho ... LDB _is_ feeling his buttocks being charred this week. As
> John said, 'that makes Desmond a better man than you, PV [sic]'.
You wish!! That particular comment from John has stuck in your craw.
And it will stick there for some time to come. Just to 'remind you' of
John's words --
"And Desmond is defeated again. You must be at a loose end Desmond if all
you have to do is make these quite pointless responses to both incubus and
PV. The first is not worth responding to, I plonked him days ago, and the
second is more than a match for you."
It seems you are only left with that donkey dirtbag, to help pull your
trailer of cow chips.
> [1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2436006997d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=tLQb9.36722%24bc.470782%40twister.tampaba
y.rr.com
Let's run through it again -- these are the comments you made before you
recognized your 'error.'
You wrote --
"Psst, LDB ? Tell us again about how O.J. Simpson was 'convicted
of murder in a civil court' ... or even better, how Judge Zobel 'could
have simply overturned' Louise Woodward's Second-Degree Murder
conviction, if he had wanted to ..."
You wrote --
"The Judge was _not_ empowered to 'overturn' the verdict. All he
could do was to reduce it to manslaughter. Which is what he did."
You wrote --
"This is plainly not the case. Rule 25(b)(2) allows a trial judge, to
_reduce_ the verdict, but not to overturn it."
You wrote --
"If the defence had asked Zobel to deliver his ruling wearing eyeshadow
and pink polka dot pyjamas, suspended upside down from Air Force
One at 100 ft ASL, would LDB think that Rule 25[b][2] 'empowered'"
him to comply ?
You wrote --
"ROTFLMAO !!!! Did you get that in your copy of _Law for Dummies_ ?
Because a judge denies a motion, it means that he was 'empowered'
to grant it ?
Oh Lord, this is _delicious_ !!! This is _wonderful_ !!!
You idiot ... you crass, classless, profoundly dense man. Oh, I
can't stop laughing ...
You wrote --
"Before you start making a fool of yourself ... oops, too late ... you
might like to consider what everyone has been trying to tell you for
nigh on 48 hours now, i.e. that the ruling shows no such thing. All
it shows is that the defence _asked_ Judge 'Sobel' (sic) to do that.
Rule 25[b][2] doesn't allow this, and so he had to deny the ruling."
You wrote --
"his 'come-and-spank-me' inability to digest and analyse legal
texts and decisions ... his belief that Rule 25[b][2] (which he hadn't
even _heard of_, until JPB and I gave him a 'heads-up') gave Judge Zobel
the power to overturn the second degree murder conviction, handed down in
the Commonwealth v. Woodward case."
You wrote --
"In, fact, the beautiful 'double-whammy' that I dealt you last night, was
that I pre-empted you with Judge Zobel's ruling, and that said ruling
shows that Rule 25[b][2] only allows a judge to reduce a murder conviction
to a lesser offence."
AND OOOPSSSS... here comes the 'embarrassed admission of your
error' --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that Judge Zobel
could not have overturned the guilty verdict, and that the only option
open to him, was to reduce the verdict of second degree murder, to a
lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was, in
fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary) quash
it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from the Massachusetts
Bar Association, would appear to confirm this view."
Now, take a look at your words -- the insults you heaped on me, when
you were WRONG. And you expect to come away with NO APOLOGY?
I was called by you --
an idiot
having obtained my information (which was correct, BTW) from a copy
of _Law for Dummies_
Oh..you couldn't stop laughing
My 'come-and-spank-me' inability to digest and analyse legal
texts and decisions
crass
classless
profoundly dense
Before you start making a fool of yourself ... oops, too late .. (actually, I
believe it was too late for YOU to avoid making of fool of YOURSELF).
And 'the beautiful 'double-whammy' that' you dealt me
And these are only a part of the insults you heaped on me because
I WAS RIGHT, and YOU WERE WRONG. Clearly, an apology was
in order, for the insults which were NOT provided in 'good faith.'
When I offered my comment, I expected that you HAD apologized,
even though you had not used the word. When John Rennie brought
it out, I was stunned that you could be so unaware of how destructive
your comments had been WHILE YOU WERE WRONG, and that you
felt no apology was necessary... since your insults were provided in
'good faith.'
Nonetheless, as I said... I no longer feel an obligation to not point out what
you DID SAY. The insults... the perverse thoughts... the denials... the
admission you were wrong.. and the unmistakable typical behavior of
recognizing your own inadequacies, but never feeling a need to apology
for those inadequacies. Clearly, my one word mistake of substituting
'guilty' for 'liable' for which I DID apologize over and over, pales in comparison
to your ignorant behavior. You could apologize many times over now, sport...
and it would no longer make a difference. You have been branded as
someone who does not have the ability to 'look in the mirror.' This is
just one of the examples demonstrating that defect in your character.
PV
> --
>Ayatollah Desmond Coughlan |Superlunary and Most Exalted
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:nam8qa....@lievre.voute.net...
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> { snip close to 371 lines of LDB's inane, moronic gibbering at having been
> royally spanked by me yesterday }
>
appropriate forehead banging against desktop, keeping time with the
Anvil Chorus.
> >> First, the Code to which you refer is not the 'Election Law Secrecy Act'.
> >> There is no such Code in French jurisprudence. The Code is in fact known as
> >> the 'Code ?lectoral' ('the Electoral Code') [5]. Nowhere in the title does the
> >> word 'secrecy' appear. Still, your use of it serves your purpose, which is to
> >> convince the undecided that France stifles the liberty of expression. In
> >> short, to make people believe your lies.
>
> > Oh.. it's SECRECY alright. And regardless of all your silly posturing,
> > I will bring this up AGAIN and AGAIN... each time you pathetically
> > speak of 'freedom of expression' in France, which EVERYONE knows
> > is not as 'free' as you would presume.
>
> 'Bring this up AGAIN [sic] and AGAIN [sic]' as much as you like, 'sport' (sic).
Are you hard of hearing? Isn't that what I said I'd do?
> I have dealt with your 'points' (and I'm being generous) one by one, and have
> thrashed them.
No, you haven't. You've merely tried to use SG Seminal Axiom 6) here.
> You may have noticed that the X-No-Archive flag was missing
> from the humungous savaging that you suffered at my hands yesterday.
Meaning you wish to now DISPLAY your ignorance, while in the past
you have hoped to hide it. Not to worry... we all know you will revert
to hoping to again hide that ignorance. In this particular case... your
obsession with 'things French,' clouded your judgment in respect to your
own recognition of your ignorance, which usually serves you well to be
hidden. I do not believe you should appear to be 'proud' to now
display it for all posterity to see.
> This
> was to remove the need for me to delve into my archives the next time you
> 'br[ought] this up AGAIN [sic]'. All I need to do now, is to provide a
> URL, and slap-a-ma-thigh, here it is 'alright' (sic)...
>
>
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:alt.activism.death-penalty+author:Desmond+author:Coughlan&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&selm=slrnasd7jb.3fb.pasdespam_desmond%40lievre.voute.net&rnum=2
>
You can respond all you wish, my pedantic little egomaniac... because it's
all 'mindless drivel.' the FACT is that the three points I mention, most
certainly limit any conceivable belief in a 'freedom of expression.' I will
simply 'respond' to your 'response' with my 371 line scathing destruction
of your entire 'argument' (sic) --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2529301278d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bSKx9.126091%24r7.2296002%40twister.t
ampabay.rr.com
> You're keen on the 'eye of the beholder'. Well that 'eye' has seen you be
> cast down at my feet like a whimpering cur. No more needs to be said.
>
YOUR eye??? Jesus, desi... you're blind as a bat when it comes to
things that might cast doubt on the 'purity' of France. And EVERY OTHER
'eye' in this group, knows it. If you HAD an operational eye, you might be
able to 'look in the mirror.'
> { snip remainder of Saddam Hussein Special, and more denials to have incited
> others to murder }
>
Actually, my Muslim zealot, friend... I wish someone would put out a
'contract' to halt your stupidity. But God is not always as kind as we
wish Him to be. I believe you have more to worry about from 'The One'
poisoning you, then any incitements from others.
PV
> --
> Ayatollah Desmond Coughlan |I just LOVE 'dead and decaying bodies'