From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: kids
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:42:48 +0200
Message-ID: <s50bpvk4dl0ok4kom1g18tstspnf3bqid9@4ax.com>
References: <hja8pvsmn98s76srm5acq785hrvb1sa4dl@4ax.com> <
J7DU2GBX37914.8434490741@anonymous.poster>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.233.18
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.233.18
X-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 15:43:03 -0400, 217.88.233.18
X-Original-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 15:43:03 -0400, 217.88.233.18
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 140
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1651052
On 21 Oct 2003 01:14:34 -0000, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:36:21 +0200, Gerry Armstrong
><gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in msg
><hja8pvsmn98s76srm5acq785hrvb1sa4dl@4ax.com>:
>
>>On 20 Oct 2003 00:49:10 -0000, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>>
>>>On 19 Oct 2003 09:42:25 -0700, Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca>
wrote
in msg
>>><bmueth01dfa@drn.newsguy.com>:
>>>
><snip>
>>>>Have you ever been the target of a forged post? There have
>>>>been thousands of posts forged with my email address and
>>>>username. Do you think it's okay for people to do that? I
>>>>don't.
>>>
>>>Since it was done to make a specific point *to* the very person
being
>>>impersonated, I don't have a problem with what happened to Gerry.
>>
>>I get it, if somebody's check was forged to make a specific point *to*
>>that person, perhaps that he was now $100,000 poorer, you wouldn't
>>have a problem with that?
>>
>>I imagine too that my murder would be just ducky with you too just as
>>long as it was done *to* me to make a specific point?
>>
>>How about the 9/11 bombers? As long as they were making a specific
>>point *to* their victims it would be just fine?
>
>Did I say any of those things? No.
No one said you did. I was making the point that your assertion and
reasoning that you had no problem with the forgery because it was done
for the purpose of making a specific point *to* the victim of the
forgery was faulty. That the offense, tort or crime is done for that
purpose is no legitimate excuse or legal defense.
>
>>
>>How in the world does "mak[ing] a specific point *to* the"
victim
of
>>the crime excuse, justify or ameliorate the crime? It doesn't. Your
>>reasoning is BS.
>
>What crime was committed?
Forgery. My Blacks says that "a person is guilty of forgery if, with
purpose to defraud or injure anyone....the actor....makes, completes,
executes, authenticates, issues or transfers any writing so that it
purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act."
> What damage did you suffer as a result of a
>practical demonstration of how usenet posting works?
Note first of all that for the crime of forgery to have been
committed, no injury must occur. The crime depends on the purpose to
injure.
The purpose to injure is clear in the statement the forger wrote and
signed with my signature:
[Quote]
Now you will have to excuse me. I have to go shove my cock down a
10 year old's throat.
[End Quote]
The purpose to injure is also clear in the rest of the text in that
post.
I believe that the intention to injure is so clear that if the forger
was discovered, he could be criminally prosecuted.
It is no more necessary to forge an injurious post to perform a
practical demonstration of how usenet posting works, than it is
necessary to murder someone to show how guns work.
>
>>
>>And worse, I believe that by your "logic" you are defending
and
>>advocating hate crimes.
>
>Would that be the kind of hate crime that involves disagreeing with you,
>Gerry?
I am saying that the logic of justifying offensive, tortious or
criminal behavior if it makes a specific point *to* the victim of the
offense, tort or crime is a computation that results in hate crimes.
>
>>
>>> On
>>>Gerry's own theory we can't prove it wasn't Gerry who wrote the
anonymous
>>>message anyway.
>>
>>This is false. But it is also just another BS "reason" for
you
to
>>justify this malicious forgery. Not only was the malicious forgery
>>done *to* me to make a specific point, but, anyway, I had, you're
>>sure, a faulty theory. Ergo, I may be injured by any means by anyone
>>without any discipline of the person doing the injuring. Where have I
>>seen *that* reasoning before?
>
>What injury did you suffer? Where did I say you may be injured 'by any
>means'?
What you said was that you didn't have any problem with me being
injured with the malicious forgery because it was done for the purpose
of making a specific point *to* me. I'm saying that this "logic" is
reminiscent of the philosophy of fair game. It is as wrong to justify
the crime of forgery for that purpose as to justify any other crime.
The purpose you are using to justify the crime justifies no crime. The
real purpose was to injure.
>
>>
>>>
>>>But yeah, in general I think can be a bad thing.
>>
>>Like if the victimizing wasn't done to make a specific point *to* the
>>very person being victimized, right?
>
>You poor victim!
It is somewhat interesting that you say nothing in criticism of the
forger, but do attack his victim.
> How were you victimized by this particular clearly
>labelled anonymous usenet posting?
It is not clearly labelled. It was intended to injure, and it did
injure.
>
>Ever yours in fandom,
>Jommy Cross
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org