🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.1129a3b0d...@news.demon.co.uk>, in which a
one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <fvtv2.684$wc4....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
> tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> > > > 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.
> 
> So....***?*** What is the POINT***?*** Unlike yourself I do not wish to 
> add 2 and 2 to make 5. FINISH THE SENTENCE

The point (as it has been stated numerous times) is that the webmasters
were not in violation of the law.  I just thought you might get bored if
I finished up every paragraph with "So this is why I believe they were
playing by the rules" or something like that,

> > > > > > > > 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.
> 
> ****?**** 
> 
> "?" indicates a question in the English language hence my EMPHASISED use 
> of it in this post with ***?*** since you are missing punctuation as well 
> as the text. 

Yes, you ask it like it is a question but then you continue like it is 
undeniable fact (ie, by trying to prove to me that I should have some
faith in the courts even though I already do).

> > > 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.
> 
> But you then went onto say (not verbatim) "if they saw it as a threat... 
> *****I WOULD HAVE*****". 

I would have *if I had seen it as a threat*!  I argued this to show
that the doctors did not act as though they felt threatened.

> > > > 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.  
> 
> At last progress. 

Yes, until you go on to say later that opinions themselves *aren't*
in fact threats, but they can be *only* when mixed with facts.

> > 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.)
> 
> Now we are getting somewhere. Enhance it maybe. 

I can try.  I was taught that criminals are punished worse for their
intent, and that it applies to everything, not threats.  

If you accidentally kill somebody, that is called "manslaughter" and
it is not as bad as doing it on purpose ("murder" in whatever degree).

Although I'm not *totally* 100% sure, I do recall that the same applies
to threats, and if you purposely make someone else feel threatened that
is worse than doing it on accident.

If nothing else, their punishment was too great and a violation of the
Eigth Amendment:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel 
and unusual punishments inflicted."

> > > > 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
> 
> Good. 
> 
> > It's just whether the opinions are threats, which is where we disagree.
> 
> OK. Define your view of "opinion". Here are a few possibilities, but feel 
> free to illustrate with more.
> 
> "I wish you were dead"

Who hasn't said this about/to their ex?

> "I want you dead"

Who hasn't said this about Saddam Hussein?

> "You should die"

This can be quite ambiguous.  A doctor could say this to his patient in 
puzzlement about why said patient still breathes ;)

> "You should be killed"

Who hasn't said this about Hitler?

> > > > 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?
> 
> Hmmm, I must have missed the IMHO or equivalent... No, it reads like a 
> statement of "fact". No indication of opinion whatsoever. 

Kind of, but that's because I believe it *is* a fact.

> > > 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
> 
> This == getting tedious!

LOL, and it's your fault for starting this, what with the "more <> all".
:P

> > > > 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
> 
> Punishment. Removing the threat is the victory that the victim seeks. 
> Damages provide punishment. Just removing the threat may give the victim 
> peace of mind but does not stop the perpetrator doing the same thing 
> again. Punishment (in this case damages) is designed to do that. 

It does not.  That's more money than I make in a year.  I'm sure the
"criminals" cannot afford to pay this amount of money.  Now they have
nothing to lose, so what's to stop them from coming back and doing it
again (anonymously)?

> > they were thrown in jail, that would also remove them for the moment.
> 
> The offence did not justify a term of incarceration. Punitive damages was 
> applicable. 

You must admit that even if they were guilty that they had to pay way too
much money.

> > But they acted more out of revenge and greed rather than fear.
> 
> Another missing IMHO***?***

Is it really necessary to clarify when stating opinions and stating facts?
Do you know how annoying that would get?

> > > > 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.
> 
> Forced attrition != genuine sorrow.

Yes, although most people usually cannot tell the difference.
(I don't know if you heard Clinton's apology over there or not.)

> > 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...?
> 
> Actually I think the outcome would be another page saying Fuck me we have 
> FORCED Dr X of address to change we can do it to them all and the 
> "threat" list would increase as would the explicit nature of the threats. 
> Violence breeds violence. Any terrorist victory results in more terrorist 
> activity. 
> 
> > Also, we are both referring to a scroll hundreds of years old for
> > a legal code :P
> 
> Huh?

The Bill of Rights.  The Constitution.  Laws that predate any human
being anywhere on the Earth.

> Although the Law has its foundation in times past, it is constantly 
> updated to account for changes in society. The bible has not changed in 
> what 2000 years or so***?*** We are not all living in grass huts these 
> days and have many more things to consider than the outdated moral code 
> of 2000 years ago. 
> 
> I see your point, 

Oh good.  In that case you can ignore the above 3 sentences.

> but as we recently discussed your source of inspiration is rapidly
> outdating. 

I don't see an "IMHO" here either :P  

> Society changes constantly and the Law may move a step or two behind
> but it does move on.
>
> > > 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.
> 
> But if you had an option to remove the threat, 

Again, if I pictured somebody as a terrorist, I could not consider
a humiliating court experience and ruining their credit for the next
7 years "removing the threat".  If there's a threat (anywhere) there's
really no way you can remove it except by death.

> punish the perpetrator and get on with your life how *you* choose,
> would you not prefer that? Maybe you prefer to let anyone with the
> audacity to threaten you to control your life. Most people like to
> control their own destiny.
> 
> > > 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 you could go to your grave an old broken Man with stories of how you 
> were forced by a bunch of bullies down a path not of your choosing. Sound 
> happy?

Sounds better than worrying the rest of your life about people whose
credit and lives you *ruined* enacting revenge upon you.  Honestly,
if I had to choose between 

A) standing up for myself + being killed for it or
B) agree to stop doing whatever's pissing them off + getting to live

I would choose B.  Maybe some people prefer death, but that's their
decision.

> > 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.
> 
> So what then? Give in. Terrorism in the full definition of the term.

Yes, I would give in if I honeslty believed they were a threat.
That does not mean that those were their motives.

> > > > 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.
> 
> But who will be the first suspects? Who is going to get a shit load of 
> hassle every time similar problem occurs? Will they consider it worth the 
> risk to them?

I don't know, I'm not them.  I would.

> > > Did you see what I wrote? 
> > 
> > Not when I said what I did, no.
> 
> So you actually draft your reply before mine and try to mingle it in 
> then***?***

Hold on, what you were you talking about when you said "what I wrote"?
This is kind of like that time you said "see my other post".  You wrote
a million things, I thought you were you talking about something you
wrote *AFTER* I wrote what I did.

> If you wish to continue this conversation at least have the courtesy to 
> read my response. An apology for your admitted ignorance above would have 
> been appreciated. 

You just need to make yourself more clear..  Again, I didn't really know
what "what I wrote" meant but I thought it was something you wrote at about 
the same time you asked me, and in that case no I did not.

> > > 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 
> 
> Who do you think provides the email servers***?*** God***?***

Do you think Geocities is my ISP?  Is Hotmail an ISP now?

> > 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.
> 
> I am so sick of repeating myself. I know what is out there. Anonymity is 
> NOT AS EFFECTIVE AS YOU MAY BELIEVE.

When am I going to get this through to you?
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.
> 
> OK, CUT :)

See, this is exactly what the situation above (the "what I wrote" thing)
is like.  I thought you were talking about something after the fact.
You can see how such a phrase would cause mild confusion.

> > > > 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 is there not risk in not taking action***?***

Is emailing the sites nicely as I have said before risky???

> It is called a vicious circle and it has to be broken. 

It can't be.  Either they can come back, or some other anti-choicers
will.

> > > > 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.
> 
> So point out fact. Why do you disagree***?*** Often it seems merely 
> personal adversity to law rather than basis in fact. 

I disagree that it qualifies as threat under the law.  The reason why I 
disagree on that is because stating facts and opinions can not form
threats.  Under the law, threats are formed directly from words rather
than from opinions or facts or the mix between the two.

> > > (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.
> 
> No. You wrote
> 
> "I said they *may* have felt threatened...  I would have... "
> 
> The dots are yours. Personally I feel brackets would be more appropriate 
> (sorry parentheses) but the sentence reads that you can empathise with 
> their perception of threat and in the same situation you would feel the 
> threat.

Okay, I would have felt threatened but that doesn't mean everyone would
have and it is hard for me to have any empathy for them when they didn't
act like they felt threatened.

> > > > 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.
> 
> You are the one breaking things down, not me. If you bothered to read the 
> rest of the post you would not have made such an erroneous statement.

There was nothing wrong with my statement.  Earlier in the post,
you said opinions can be threats.  You illustrated this by listing
numerous opinions (without any facts in them) that you considered
threats (at least that's what you implied).  Now you say that the
facts and opinions "intermingle to form a threat".  You see, there
is a difference between saying "Some opinons are threats" and "Some
opinions (when mixed with facts) form threats".

> > > > 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.
> 
> So why do you see a public threat as any different to a private 
> one***?***

Again, what they say in private can be considered harassment.

> > > > (it could become harassment if they did 
> > > > it by e-mail, telephone, snail mail, etc.)
> > > 
> > > Harassment yes, threat yes.
> > 
> > Threat no.
> 
> So a death threat by email is not a threat ***?***

Not by what *you* consider to be a death threat.

> > > 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
> 
> Huh? You already decided the courts and law are a waste of fucking time 
> so this is obviously asking your personal opinion not pointless 
> statements of the obvious!
> 
> Fuck me

Bullshit, this is just you putting (the same) words into my mouth again.

When you asked if I felt this was okay, then no I don't.  It's unethical,
immoral, etc. but *not* illegal and therefore not punishable by law.

> > I might not like it, but it doesn't mean they have broken the law.
> 
> They have! Show me one thing either from your "precious" Constitution 
> or American Federal Law or State law from the prosecuting state (if 
> applicable) or whatever to back up any one of your claims so far.

The first admendment (which just about everybody knows includes
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion,
Freedom of the Press, etc.)

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