🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.11281acc9...@news.demon.co.uk>, in 
which a
one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <qe6v2.317$wc4...@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
> tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> > > > So you're saying that threating a painless death (by let's say, lethal
> > > > injection) isn't a crime?
> > > 
> > > ?!. Reads it again. ?! Reads again. ?! No. 
> > > 
> > > Where did I say that? 
> > 
> > "I consider death to be physically harmful."
> > You implied it right there, as there are some forms of death that we
> > accept to be not harmful.
> 
> No they are considered more "humane". If they were not *harmful*, the 
> person would not die!

So abortion is harmful too then?

> > > *Any* death threat *is* a crime. If you are trying to draw me into a 
> > > discussion on capital punishment, then lethal injection is less a threat 

> > > and much more a promise :P
> > 
> > Alright, you still don't understand yet so let me be more clear here:
> > In "death threat" the emphasis is not so much in the _death_ as it is
> > the threat, and it's not about whether the doctors felt threatened or
> > not either.
> 
> I'll wait for you to finish that sentence.

In "death threat" the emphasis is not so much in the _death_ as it is
the threat, and it's not about whether the doctors felt threatened
either.

> > > > > > Telling a person you think they deserve to die doesn't fall into 
the
> > > > > > category however.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Telling the whole world that you think a specific person deserves to
> > > > > die does. It is implicitly threatening their life.
> > > > 
> > > > Telling the whole world that I think I should kill a certain person
> > > > would.  Or telling them that I will kill them, or telling the world
> > > > *to* kill them would.  But what they did was (just barely) within the
> > > > law.
> > > 
> > > Obviously it was *not* within the Law barely or otherwise. 
> > 
> > Wrong.  Just because something was found in court doesn't make it true.
> 
> You have no faith in courts then? 

Bullshit.  Stop putting words into my mouth.

> I agree they are not perfect but that is because they are "run" by
> humans. They do tend to be right more often than wrong. You only
> ever hear of the mistakes and never the successes. 
> 
> So far everyone here has more or less agreed that the comments were 
> threats. Even you yourself said (later in this message before you argue) 
> that you would have seen them as a threat. 

Actually I argued what I would do *if* I saw them as a threat.
That does make it a threat in the eyes of the law.  They were tricky,
they mixed facts and opinions together (perfectly legal).  Rather
than saying "I'll kill you" they said "We think abortion doctors
such as the ones in this list [link to list] have commited murder,
and thus deserve the death penalty."

> > Example, OJ won his criminal trial but lost his civil case.  Now did he
> > do it or not?
> 
> I do not know the guy. Ask him.

See?  Now you are saying it is in the intent of the defendant.

> > Yeah, well that's what I meant.  Anyway, when I break it down into
> > "facts aren't threats" and "opinions aren't threats" you can't reply
> > to the facts part saying "Stating that *you* think someone "deserves
> > to die" is opinion *not* fact" because that was why I broke it down
> > into the "opinions != threats".  
> 
> But that is the whole point. In this case the "opinion" was indeed a 
> *threat*. Opinion may = threat.

Ah.  Now we're getting somewhere :)  Yes, opinions can *appear*
threatening and if the law said that if someone felt threatened 
made it a threat, I would agree with you that opinions can be
threats under the eyes of the law.  You were wrong before when
you said I was repeating someone else's opinions, I was going
from my memory of the Constitution when I was in school.  (Which
said it has to be their intent to threaten.)

> > For the "facts != threats" it is
> > obvious that stating the facts (someone's name, adress, etc) is in
> > no way a threat.
> 
> However when placed in a sentence along with a threat it becomes one. You 
> cannot take a sentence and break it down into parts saying well, this bit 
> is fact, this is opinion and this is therefore not a threat. We are not 
> talking a list of meaningless words we are talking strings of words 
> linked together to form what we call a sentence. A sentence must be read 
> as a whole and not analyzed semantically. Semantics have little to so 
> with meaning of a sentence. The words themselves are meaningless. 
> Sentence parts are just as meaningless since they rely on the whole for 
> context. 

I agree that Facts + threats = threats
It's just whether the opinions are threats, which is where we disagree.

> ?Mean get do. you I what
> 
> Apparently the above will make complete sense to you since the idea of a 
> sentence has no relevance to you.

I know you are saying "You get what I mean?" but that doesn't mean it makes 
sense.  The reason why that is, is because you "built" the paragraph from
"However when placed in a sentence along with a threat it becomes one,"
where we disagreed on what constitutes a threat.

> > I'll have to find your message, but just because a threat exists within
> > a victim's mind is not enough.  The reason why someone has to be punished
> > for threatening someone is if it was their intent to threaten.
> 
> LISTEN! Intent is not necessary to prove threat. 

Now why do you act like I didn't know you were saying that?
Did it not seem obvious that I merely disagreed?

> What do you think "threatening behaviour" means? You will really
> love this one. It is any act that could be perceived as
> threatening by anyone and is punishable in Law. There is no intent.
> It could be something as simple as shaking your fist at the sky. No
> intent, not even personal direction. But it is threatening behaviour. > 
(extreme example since you tend to ignore what I write anyway, guess
> what you would have written if you were arguing with yourself and
> respond to your new interpretation).

ignore != disagree

> > Alright, I'll go along with your arguement that feeling threatened somehow
> > makes the other person break the law (at least for now).  Then you're
> > saying if the doctors didn't actually feel threatened, no law was broken
> > (it is logical to assume you agreee, hence the "Feeling threatened. Law 
> > broken!" statement).  
> 
> Sort of yes. There are other issues to consider but I'll read on.
> 
> > The doctors didn't act like they felt threatened.  If you are actually
> > scared for your life, you are not going to go and take any foolish risks.
> > If they really beleived those webmasters were capable of carrying it out,
> > they would not do anything to piss them off.  
> 
> Bullshit. That is what the law is for. To remove the threat. To deal with 
> it. Failing that the US has the wonderful constitutional remedy of the 
> "right to bear arms"!

Is the "threat" removed?  They could have ordered the site to shut down
and be done with it - that would be removing it (at least temporarily,
since they could come back anonymously at any given moment).  But what
does getting +$100 Million have to do with removing the "threat"?  If
they were thrown in jail, that would also remove them for the moment.
But they acted more out of revenge and greed rather than fear.

> > You know what a scared
> > doctor would do?  Stop giving abortions and let the site maintainers
> > know, and kindly ask them to remove their name, adress, etc. from the
> > list.  
> 
> You are soooo wrong. Why would stopping now make any difference? The 
> threat was already made, and I am sure in the eyes of those making the 
> threats they are guilty for past "sins". You yourself rely on a book 
> thousands of years old for moral code, why would a few months of 
> abstinence lend any credence to these doctors in the eyes of the 
> persecutors.

Since you brought up the Bible, if one is sorry for his sins, God
forgives him.  It doesn't matter if it's only been a few months.
I don't know what kind of people the webmasters are, but I wouldn't
judge them - if a doctor said he began to see things their way so
please remove his name from the list, I'm sure they'd comply.

And if you are going to judge them...  they'd consider it a 
victory.  They'd be too proud not to remove his name from the
list.  Hell, makes we wonder if that actually happened and
never made its way into the courts...?

Also, we are both referring to a scroll hundreds of years old for
a legal code :P
 
> > Then they can go and breathe a sigh of relief.  They acted more
> > like they wanted revenge rather than peace of mind, hence by your
> > argument "No law broken".
> 
> No the law was broken. Even without the threat (had the doctors not 
> deemed the comments threatening) there are other issues that could arise 
> in such statements.  

Well, I'll agree with you on the part after the parens, there's always
something.  

Off topic, but the UltraHLE emulator was in fact copyright infringement
because it uses the copyrighted 3-D "N" logo (as its main icon).
 
> > > > If they *really* felt threatened, they wouldn't have sued the
> > > > webmasters.  
> > > 
> > > What so they should live in fear? The best way to deal with threatening 
> > > behaviour is to remove the threat. This has been successfully achieved.
> > 
> > Well, I just told you what someone who was really scared would do.
> 
> No you have told me what you would do. Run and hide. Very commendable 
> <cough> 

=\  If I truly believed they were terrorists capable of carrying out
this threat, I don't think it matters.

> Now an average person is more likely to deal with the threat 
> rather than spending the rest of their lives miserable and afraid. 

Okay, you don't see it.  Let me explain:

If I sued them and pissed them off, I don't think they'd stop there.
*That* would make me spend the rest of my life miserable and afraid.
Telling them ho I stopped, went pro-life, etc. would in essence be
dealing with the "threat" directly rather than through a humiliating
court scene.

So your comment "Now an average person is more likely to deal with
the threat rather than spending the rest of their lives miserable
and afraid," implies that I am average since I fall into the same
category, albeit a different path.

> You obviously prefer this scenario 

WRONG.

> but most people want to live, not merely survive. 

If I have done what the doctors did, I would be scared every day of
my life.  Even if it wasn't a threat before, they would be a lot
angrier now since I have hurt them on a personal level.

> > The perceived threat hasn't been removed either, it could come back
> > even worse.  
> 
> It could. Or it could not. If it does, expect more drastic recourse 
> against the perpetrators since it will now have implied intent.

Yes, unless the "perpetrators" choose to remain anonymous from now on
and pretend they are different people.  It would be very difficult to
prove it was them, and that would give them room to act more freely,
making the threat (if there was one) a lot worse than before.

> > > > Now the webmasters will have to remain anonymous
> > > > in order to excersize their right to free speech.  
> > > 
> > > Difficult since Laws are in draft to require all web masters to declare 
> > > themselves on the site and to be accountable for content.
> > 
> > They could get a few anonymous email accounts...  some free web sites...
> > bring it all back and pretend they're someone else.
> 
> Did you see what I wrote? 

Not when I said what I did, no.

> Besides that, do you know of an ISP that would carry such statements and 
> risk prosecution themselves without recourse to the originator? 
>
> Anonymity on the web is not nearly as effective as we are lead to 
> believe. 

E-mail accounts != ISPs 
:P

There are anonymous mail programs, anonymous email accounts, Hell they
don't even have to use a valid email adress.  Anonymity can still be
achieved by some.

> > > > If the doctors
> > > > thought they had it rough before, things are really going to be
> > > > Hell for them now.  
> > > 
> > > How's that?
> > 
> > Well, I think I explained that already.
> 
> Not at the time you hadn't!

Heh, I didn't mean to imply that.

> > > > The doctors must not have cared or they
> > > > wouldn't risk their lives to sue these people.
> > > 
> > > You see a risk to their lives?! Yet there was (in your opinion) no 
threat 
> > > to their lives. Where is the risk?
> > 
> > I didn't say I believe they risked their lives.
> 
> Verbatim quote "The doctors must not have cared or they wouldn't 
> ******risk their lives********* to sue these people."
> 
> OK!

That's because the risk was in their minds, not in my mind.
*IF* there was a threat, then there was a risk taking it on.
If the threat is in their mind, then a risk should also be 
in their mind (as one would be in mine).

> > You know the risk is in their mind.
> > If they believed there was a threat, they would believe there a risk
> > also.
> 
> But they would believe that taking action would remove the risk and 
> remove the threat. Hence a very advantageous solution.

You missed my point - taking action to remove the "threat" is a "risk".
"Taking action would remove the risk and remove the threat" because the
risk in the taking action.  Hence a very risky solution.

> > > But I said neither. I said targeted comments which could be/were 
> > > perceived as a threat were so. Nothing to do with free speech there. 
> > > Anyway, your comments above seem to imply that you do acknowledge a 
> > > threat to their lives so your argument seems to have run it's course and 

> > > crashed and burned.
> > 
> > I said they *may* have felt threatened...  I would have...  
> 
> So you *agree* it was a threat. 

I agree that the threat may have been in their mind.  I disagree that
that's a threat under the eyes of the law.

> (the "I would have bit" seems to explicitly imply that you would have
> seen it as a threat were you in that position yet you find it so
> incredulous that another person might) 

That...  The "I would have" refers to what I would have done *if* I
had seen it as a threat.

> > but that doesn't 
> > make stating the facts and opinions illegal.  
> 
> When intermingled to form a threat it DOES!!!!!!!!

Changing your story again?  First, opinions alone are threats.
Then the opinions and facts need to be mixed to become a threat.

> > Targeted comments could become
> > illegal if they were done in private 
> 
> How? If the victim did not know then no threat has been made. 

I meant, in private to the victim.

> If a third party reported such private conversations and brought the
> "threat" into the open then yes action would likely follow. 

That would be more...  conspiring than anything.

> > (it could become harassment if they did 
> > it by e-mail, telephone, snail mail, etc.)
> 
> Harassment yes, threat yes.

Threat no.

> > > > > These Doctors were singled out as targets. This is threatening. Do 
you
>  
> > > > > really think these Doctors thought nothing of it? Would you? Imagine 

> > > > > visiting a prominent associations web site and seeing your name and 
> > > > > address posted along with a list of contemporaries together with the 

> > > > > comment that you should die. Out of 5 billion or so people on the
>  planet, 
> > > > > you and a few associates are singled out. Would you not feel 
somewhat 
> > > > > perturbed or even "threatened"? 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think you would. You will not even post on this newsgroup the
>  *state* 
> > > > > you live in for "fear" of consequence. Imagine having your exact
>  location 
> > > > > in a message here and in a threatening form ... "Kombat of <this
>  address> 
> > > > > should be killed because he is a ... ". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yet you think this is OK?
> > > > 
> > > > My adress is not public information, therefore it isn't okay.  
> > > 
> > > Are you not listed in whatever the US equivalent is of "register of 
> > > electors" (list of people able to vote)? - Public information
> > 
> > No, I just turned 18, and didn't register yet, so nyeh :P
> 
> Sorry. I thought we were having an adult conversation. We'll talk more 
> when you start shaving :P

=\  I have been shaving *every day* for about one and a half years.
 
> As you should have realised, my argument stands, the chances are that 
> anyone and everyone's name and address is public information of one form 
> or another. 

I don't think so.

> So now with that in mind, use an adult of your choice whose details are 
> "public information" and answer the original question... "Yet you think 
> this is OK?"

OK != Legal

I might not like it, but it doesn't mean they have broken the law.

> So the list comes with specific columns for
> 
> <name> <address> <specialist area> <opinion> <threats> <other comments> 
> :P
> 
> If not my point stands.

No, it's like "<opinion> <click for list>".  I do not see why it even
matters as they are both different ways of saying the same thing.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|