In article <[email protected]>,
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there some kind of reason for that, and other gibberish, that these
> halfwits spout?
It's an attempt to bypass anti-spam filters that parse the text of the
message.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:49:32 -0400, "Jerry S." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Wow. Sure is empty in here.
>
You oughta' know
View inside of a spammer's head:
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/agron/nutrient/Topics/manure_pile.jpg
News.admin.net-abuse.email is the place to address spam, spammers,
spamming and anti-spam techniques.
The short answer is that spammers put nonsense text into their spam
in an effort to evade content filters. It's called hash-busting.
If you want a longer explanation of how content filters like
Spamassassin work, see the above-mentioned newsgroup.
--
FF
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2005 13:10:06 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > Anyone have any insight--got a spam email offering low cost
software,
> > but the curious part, is that it was followed by "monkeying
hardware"
> > as part of the headline.
> >
> > Is there some kind of reason for that, and other gibberish, that
these
> > halfwits spout?
>
> They're trying to defeat bayesian filters by making the subject line
> and message look less spammish. That's why some of the spam now has
> excerpts of normal text at the end, or other techniques.
>
> Death penalty for spammers. It's the best way.
And it's humane, too. Puts them out of their misery.
FoggyTown
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
> Well, since we've recently determined that it is OK to judicially
order
> the dehydration and starvation of a non-terminal human being simply
because
> that person is existing at a diminished capacity, it seems that since
> spammers by definition exist in a state of diminished capacity, the
case
> could be made for similar treatment of spammers.
>
As far back as I can recall next of kin have been allowed to make that
decision for neurologically dead relatives.
Also, as far back as I can recall the courts have had the authority to
settle disputes between family members.
What is new, is legislative meddling in what should be a private family
decision.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2005 11:28:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, since we've recently determined that it is OK to
judicially
> >order
> >> the dehydration and starvation of a non-terminal human being
simply
> >because
> >> that person is existing at a diminished capacity, it seems that
since
> >> spammers by definition exist in a state of diminished capacity,
the
> >case
> >> could be made for similar treatment of spammers.
> >>
> >
> >As far back as I can recall next of kin have been allowed to make
that
> >decision for neurologically dead relatives.
> >
>
> Term formerly implied brain-dead with the inability to sustain life
(i.e,
> could not breathe or sustain heartbeat without extraordinary
measures).
> Until this case, it had never meant the witholding of sustenance from
a
> brain-damaged person. She was not "neurologically dead", she could
survive
> with only being supplied food and water. There are statements from
> caregivers that she could probably have been able to eat and drink
with
> some rehabilitation.
A substantial amount of her dead brain tissue, perhaps one third of the
brain had been absorbed by her body leaving a huge void. The remaining
tissue was serverely atrophied. Her heart continued to beat and
her lungs to breath because the atrophy had not yet destroyed her
brain stem.
People can survive with near normality after losing an entire
hemisphere of their brain but her damage was symetrical. There was
nothing to compensate for what was lost. The parts of the brain
where emotion, memory and cognition take place were not just
damaged, they were gone entirely. Without emotion, memory and
cognition, there is no person.
Maybe someday, if for example stem cell research pans out, people
whose brains have been deprived of oxygen for seven minutes will
have a chance to recover. Until then, with the exception of the
very rare events in which hypothermia and diving reflex save
the brain, such people will be die despite the fact that their
hearts may beat and the breathing reflex remain.
> Do you realize the kind of death she was subjected
> to?
Yes. She suffered a heart attack that deprived her brain of
oxygen for about seven minutes. That was a quick and painless
death. Terri Shiavo died fifteen years ago.
> Having water and food withheld until she died? There are people who
> have been born retarded who have the same needs as she did; would it
be OK
> to lock them in a room without food and water until they die?
>
Her condition was very similar to an encephalic infant, one born
with only a brain stem and posessing only autonomic reflexes. IMHO
it is perfectly fine to let an encephalic infant's body die a natural
death.
> >Also, as far back as I can recall the courts have had the authority
to
> >settle disputes between family members.
> >
>
> So this was simply a dispute between family members?
Yes.
> Side 1, "We are willing to become her guardians and see to it that
she gets
> rehabilitation as best as possible, recognizing she will be living at
> greatly diminished capacity"
Sometimes the parents of an encephalic infant insist on keeping the
body alive as long as possible. Eventually pneumonia or an infection
kills the body. That would be torture, if there were a person in
that body.
Rehabilitation was plainly not possible for Terri Shiavo's body.
What was left of there brain was mostly white matter. There is
no reason to suppose the atrophy would even stop, left alone
reverse.
She would not live at 'greatly diminished capacity'. Her mental
capacity had diminished to zero.
>
> Side 2, "She wouldn't want to live this way, she told me so once
while we
> were watching a movie. So let's torture her by making her die of
thirst.
> The saliva spray will make it not so painful"
>
There was no one left alive to feel pain.
>
> >What is new, is legislative meddling in what should be a private
family
> >decision.
>
> No, what is new is a court ordering the dehydration and starvation
of an
> otherwise functioning human, although at a greatly diminished mental
> capability.
She was not an 'otherwise funcitoning human'. Her mental capability
had been diminished to non existance. She had NO funtions, beyond
autonomic functions and reflexes.
Never befor had any legislative body intervened in such a case.
> What is further new is the refusal to acknowledge testimony by
> caregivers and other witnesses that the term "brain dead" was very
much
> overstated.
I disagree.
> After all, in all other capital punishment cases, the mantra
> is always, "if there's the least bit of doubt, we shouldn't carry out
this
> death sentance"
This was not a capital punishment case and it was not a death
sentence. She died fifteen years ago. Her husband waited
five years for her parents to accept her death and to establish
the certainty that she was in a PVS.
> So in this case, the single witness who said, "she wants
> to die" was able to trump all the other witnesses.
No. It was hardly the case that "all other witnesses" disputed
the decision.
--
FF
Sorry, I mispelt "anencephalic." It was late.
The major point though, is that every judge who heard the case
ruled consistently with established precedent, a precedent that
has been the law for CENTURIES. They could have made no more
conservative decision.
Claims of an "out-of-control" judiciary, made by politicians
who must or at least should know the law, are blatant lies.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
> Term formerly implied brain-dead with the inability to sustain life
(i.e,
> could not breathe or sustain heartbeat without extraordinary
measures).
> Until this case, it had never meant the witholding of sustenance from
a
> brain-damaged person. She was not "neurologically dead", she could
survive
> with only being supplied food and water.
I had trouble parsing this first time around and still do.
It would seem that you are trying to retroactivgely define
"neurogiczally dead" aka "brain dead".
"Brain dead" has ALWAYS meant permanent loss of HIGHER brain
functions, memory, cognition, emotion. without regard, but
often despite a continuation of autonomic funcions like
neartbeat, peristalsis, and breathing.
A body that had lost autononmic functions was NEVER referred
to as merely "neurologically dead" it was just plain dead.
A respirator can keep the lungs working indefinately but
there isn't anything that'll keep the heart beating other
than the patient's own nervous system.
In Terri Shiavo's case, she was actually beyond brain dead,
much of her dead brain tissue had been reabsorbed into her
body, it was GONE, not merely dead.
--
FF
My newsreader (stooopid!) won't let me trim the original posting so...
All I really want to add is that you should create a new Advance Medical
Directive on an annual basis because the laws affecting them change pretty
often. Moreover, hospital staff, in their quest to avoid costly lawsuits,
will frequently challenge them in court. Be certain that whoever witnesses
your signature is actually looking on as you put ink to paper. This is no
time for them to glance at the television.
Because of our beliefs regarding blood transfusions, nearly all Jehovah's
Witnesses have been carrying these cards for meny, many years. We've faced
the legal challenges in just about every jurisdiction on the planet.
Consider giving the DPA to a close friend not related by blood, not a member
of the medical profession. This seriously reduces legal challenges of bias
on their part.
Dot your "i's", cross your "t's" and put that little curly thing on the
"q's" because once you are incapacitated / incompetent, you get NO more
chances to speak. What ain't in writing ain't worth the paper it wasn't
written on.
There are about 6 1/2 million of us. No matter what you may think of our
beliefs, take a hint from our experience. Even WITH everything in order your
executor could face a very tough fight. If you drop the ball on even a
small-seeming detail, they will get clobbered in court.
My wife has my funeral plans ... someone else has DPA. She will never have
to wonder if she should 'pull the plug' because it isn't her decision to
make.
I'm not an attorney and I am not giving legal advice. Just sharing some
hard-won information about how things work.
Follow it or don't ... your choice.
Bill
On 3 Apr 2005 13:10:06 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anyone have any insight--got a spam email offering low cost software,
> but the curious part, is that it was followed by "monkeying hardware"
> as part of the headline.
>
> Is there some kind of reason for that, and other gibberish, that these
> halfwits spout?
They're trying to defeat bayesian filters by making the subject line
and message look less spammish. That's why some of the spam now has
excerpts of normal text at the end, or other techniques.
Death penalty for spammers. It's the best way.
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:18:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, Nick, this was a bad idea. I'm done, I've said my piece, this
> whole incident has really bothered me; the fact that those who so rail
> against any kind of perceived inhumane treatment of anything all of a
> sudden were so eager to pile on to actually kill this person who only
> needed help to eat and drink.
If I'm ever in that situation, I hope my family doesn't _start_ the
feeding tube in the first place. The only consolation is that she
didn't know she was being tortured for 15 years, I suppose.
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:18:02 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> spake:
> Term formerly implied brain-dead with the inability to sustain life (i.e,
>could not breathe or sustain heartbeat without extraordinary measures).
>Until this case, it had never meant the witholding of sustenance from a
>brain-damaged person. She was not "neurologically dead", she could survive
>with only being supplied food and water. There are statements from
>caregivers that she could probably have been able to eat and drink with
>some rehabilitation. Do you realize the kind of death she was subjected
>to?
Do you realize what her "life" may have been like for the last fifteen
f*cking years? I would have opted for a quicker death, though, but
would MUCH prefer a couple weeks of starvation to 15 years of hell.
I watched my grandmother on my dad's side die from stomach cancer. She
went from a large woman (150+ lbs) down to 60 lbs in the 2 years it
took her to die. I'll never forget that--the smell of her live but
decaying body, the look in her eyes, the awful feelings in that
room--and absolutely, under no circumstances, do I ever want to watch
another person suffer like that. Our bloody society is kinder to
horses and other pets than it is to people. Grrrr!
I just filled out an Advance Directive for Medical Care which states
to everyone involved that I do NOT want life support. When this body's
gone, it's gone. DNR, no life support. And if I don't die immediately,
I hope someone is -kind- enough to help put me out of my misery.
Poor Terry's fate was a wakeup call reminding us to fill out these
forms for ourselves. For those times when we are not able to make the
decision of our fate for ourselves, that form is all that stands
between us and the horrible last 15 years of Terry's life.
Google "advance directive xxx" where xxx is your state.
--------------------------------------------
Proud (occasional) maker of Hungarian Paper Towels.
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
======================================================
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:41:34 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote something
......and in reply I say!:
Now _there's_ a gratuitously-introduced hook.,...
> Well, since we've recently determined that it is OK to judicially order
>the dehydration and starvation of a non-terminal human being simply because
>that person is existing at a diminished capacity, it seems that since
>spammers by definition exist in a state of diminished capacity, the case
>could be made for similar treatment of spammers.
******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.
Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
.
>
> Poor Terry's fate was a wakeup call reminding us to fill out these
> forms for ourselves. For those times when we are not able to make the
> decision of our fate for ourselves, that form is all that stands
> between us and the horrible last 15 years of Terry's life.
>
> Google "advance directive xxx" where xxx is your state.
>
Make sure you get a durable PA for healthcare done, with succession, e.g.
daughter, if not daughter, son, etc, because as you age, they do, and may
die before you. Be sure to have the people who can speak on your behalf
briefed, and make sure they know the location of the directive you signed.
Should you develop Alzheimer's, the state will appoint people to be your
conservator and guardian, and it can take a while for even your designee to
step in and take charge. If your designee has died, and there is no
successor, remember you're not competent, and can't do anything, and so it
goes, even though you're still alive.
DAMHIKT
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:52:31 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote something
......and in reply I say!:
Larry
You and I have had some stoushes about techo stuff. But I am right
with you here.
What matters here is that the poor woman was going to live a shit
life, for at least a year, unless some amazing breakthrough was made
_within_ a year. She was NOT offered the choice of a fast death. She
was instead starved to death, or "thirsted" to death.
That argument was skirted completely, as usual. Everybody said "oh,
starvation... it's not so bad". But I doubt if any of them had tried
it, as usual.
My father is past president (retired not dead) of the Voluntary Euth
Soc for our state. He still is active in it.
Their Advanced Directive (Living Will) goes further than the one you
have talked of. It requests a _killing_, not a "removal of support",
death in the stated circumstances.
He chose removal of life suport for my mother, after her third
stroke/heart attack. I had no say in that because of bad timing, and
that fact hurts a bit, but I feel that as the person most affected by
both her loss and her suffering, he had the overriding right to make
that decision on the spot.
He also knew _her_ feelings on the subject. As did I.
I have NEVER raised that with him. Gone. Sad but lost.
I had talked often to her when she was told she needed a triple this
and that, and she had decided that, due to her quality of life
_despite the best medical efforts_,
she was not going to bother. I said "You realise what this means?".
While my Mother was still alive and lucid, I tried to councel her to
realise what it meant to refuse treatment.
She was not stupid. She knew.
BUT. She could have, if not for the compassion of the hospital staff,
and my acquiescent understanding of the situation, been subjected to
the same long-term suffering that Terry was.
By the grace of whatever it is that guides this strange, pointless
existance of ours, she faded rapidly, and was dead very soon. Before
morning.
>Do you realize what her "life" may have been like for the last fifteen
>f*cking years?
fucking years, Larry...let's not get PC about this.
And the next 15, if the RTLs had their way.
>I would have opted for a quicker death, though, but
>would MUCH prefer a couple weeks of starvation to 15 years of hell.
>I watched my grandmother on my dad's side die from stomach cancer. She
>went from a large woman (150+ lbs) down to 60 lbs in the 2 years it
>took her to die. I'll never forget that--the smell of her live but
>decaying body, the look in her eyes, the awful feelings in that
>room--and absolutely, under no circumstances, do I ever want to watch
>another person suffer like that. Our bloody society is kinder to
>horses and other pets than it is to people. Grrrr!
>
>I just filled out an Advance Directive for Medical Care which states
>to everyone involved that I do NOT want life support. When this body's
>gone, it's gone. DNR, no life support. And if I don't die immediately,
>I hope someone is -kind- enough to help put me out of my misery.
And brave, in the face of the religiously and "morally"-based legal
situation.....they would be a murderer, by definition.
>Poor Terry's fate was a wakeup call reminding us to fill out these
>forms for ourselves. For those times when we are not able to make the
>decision of our fate for ourselves, that form is all that stands
>between us and the horrible last 15 years of Terry's life.
>
>Google "advance directive xxx" where xxx is your state.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Proud (occasional) maker of Hungarian Paper Towels.
>http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
>======================================================
******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.
Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:18:02 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote something
......and in reply I say!:
> Term formerly implied brain-dead with the inability to sustain life (i.e,
>could not breathe or sustain heartbeat without extraordinary measures).
>Until this case, it had never meant the witholding of sustenance from a
>brain-damaged person. She was not "neurologically dead", she could survive
>with only being supplied food and water. There are statements from
>caregivers that she could probably have been able to eat and drink with
>some rehabilitation. Do you realize the kind of death she was subjected
>to? Having water and food withheld until she died? There are people who
>have been born retarded who have the same needs as she did; would it be OK
>to lock them in a room without food and water until they die?
Do you realise the kind of "life" that she would had if the only thing
she could do was eat and drink? What if she a\was NOT brain dead? What
if we kept her "alive" by fgeeding and for the 15 years already and
for anothe ???? years, she lay there _aware_ but incapable.
OK. So that really argues. But if she _is_ mercifully "brain dead" and
is totally unaware of what is heppening, why prolong that? What's the
point? You can't make _her_ suffer for her troubles, so make _others_?
We get to the "sanctity of life (soul)" here. Either this person is
suffering; they have a human capability worth preserving (thought),
but it's horrible, or they are dead except for liver function and
soul.
If you believe that soul (and probably a divine course that shapes our
ends) overcomes humanity and its phenomenon of awareness, then fine,
live on, in spite of all.
But do not enforce your beliefs on those who feel that humanity, and
its phenomenon of awareness, requires the responsibility and RIGHT of
the human individual to decide their own fate.
>
>
>>Also, as far back as I can recall the courts have had the authority to
>>settle disputes between family members.
Yes.
>>
>
> So this was simply a dispute between family members?
>Side 1, "We are willing to become her guardians and see to it that she gets
>rehabilitation as best as possible, recognizing she will be living at
>greatly diminished capacity"
She may well suffer.
>
>Side 2, "She wouldn't want to live this way, she told me so once while we
>were watching a movie. So let's torture her by making her die of thirst.
>The saliva spray will make it not so painful"
She may well suffer.
The next step is a better way. Stop tyhe suffering............for all
concerned.
>>What is new, is legislative meddling in what should be a private family
>>decision.
>
> No, what is new is a court ordering the dehydration and starvation of an
>otherwise functioning human, although at a greatly diminished mental
>capability. What is further new is the refusal to acknowledge testimony by
>caregivers and other witnesses that the term "brain dead" was very much
>overstated. After all, in all other capital punishment cases, the mantra
>is always, "if there's the least bit of doubt, we shouldn't carry out this
>death sentance" So in this case, the single witness who said, "she wants
>to die" was able to trump all the other witnesses.
Hang on. We saw reports by the media. I have NOT seen reference to
actual measurement of brain activity. Maybe we did not see it all.
I really object to your reference to "captital punishment", you
Fascist. <G?> Terry did nothing wrong. There is a mercy element here.
Remember that always.
> Yeah, Nick, this was a bad idea. I'm done, I've said my piece, this
>whole incident has really bothered me; the fact that those who so rail
>against any kind of perceived inhumane treatment of anything all of a
>sudden were so eager to pile on to actually kill this person who only
>needed help to eat and drink.
I agree. Starving to death is inhumane. Many who supported the death
of Terry would desire the humane treatment we provide for the local
pet rat.
BUT
The extremist stance against _anything_ but stasis, _maintained as it
is by man's hand_, is what forces the _inhumanity_ of what could be a
rapid, relatively non-suffering, killing of those _who wish to go_,
because they are suffering, and unforseeably curable.
******************************************************************************************
Whenever you have to prove to yourself that you are
not something, you probably are.
Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:35:11 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote
something
......and in reply I say!:
We don't know, and that's the problem.
>But if she was truly brain dead, how would hunger pangs and/or
>dehydration affect her?
******************************************************************************************
WHY _ARE_ WE HERE?
Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:22:47 -0400, Eradicate Sampson
<[email protected]> wrote something
......and in reply I say!:
>On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:49:32 -0400, "Jerry S." <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Wow. Sure is empty in here.
>>
>
>
>You oughta' know
I gather from your reply that you somehow felt that Jerry's poke at
spammers was directed at you, then?
******************************************************************************************
WHY _ARE_ WE HERE?
Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
<")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/
In article <425541f3.19076482@localhost>, [email protected]
says...
> What matters here is that the poor woman was going to live a shit
> life, for at least a year, unless some amazing breakthrough was made
> _within_ a year. She was NOT offered the choice of a fast death. She
> was instead starved to death, or "thirsted" to death.
>
> That argument was skirted completely, as usual. Everybody said "oh,
> starvation... it's not so bad". But I doubt if any of them had tried
> it, as usual.
>
But if she was truly brain dead, how would hunger pangs and/or
dehydration affect her? To quote Gertrude Stein (?) "There's no there
there."
--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description
On 7 Apr 2005 02:29:51 -0700, the inscrutable "Charlie Self"
<[email protected]> spake:
>Robatoy states:
>>>> Death penalty for spammers. It's the best way.
>
>Celine Dion at 110dB <<
>
>For those under 40 or so, how about Spike Jones instead?
Yeah, the "Crepitation Contest" played over, and over, and over...
After a week of that, they'd be too insane to post on Usenet or
via email.
--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2005 13:10:06 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Anyone have any insight--got a spam email offering low cost software,
> > but the curious part, is that it was followed by "monkeying hardware"
> > as part of the headline.
> >
> > Is there some kind of reason for that, and other gibberish, that these
> > halfwits spout?
>
> They're trying to defeat bayesian filters by making the subject line
> and message look less spammish. That's why some of the spam now has
> excerpts of normal text at the end, or other techniques.
>
> Death penalty for spammers. It's the best way.
>
Celine Dion at 110dB
On 5 Apr 2005 11:28:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, since we've recently determined that it is OK to judicially
>order
>> the dehydration and starvation of a non-terminal human being simply
>because
>> that person is existing at a diminished capacity, it seems that since
>> spammers by definition exist in a state of diminished capacity, the
>case
>> could be made for similar treatment of spammers.
>>
>
>As far back as I can recall next of kin have been allowed to make that
>decision for neurologically dead relatives.
>
Term formerly implied brain-dead with the inability to sustain life (i.e,
could not breathe or sustain heartbeat without extraordinary measures).
Until this case, it had never meant the witholding of sustenance from a
brain-damaged person. She was not "neurologically dead", she could survive
with only being supplied food and water. There are statements from
caregivers that she could probably have been able to eat and drink with
some rehabilitation. Do you realize the kind of death she was subjected
to? Having water and food withheld until she died? There are people who
have been born retarded who have the same needs as she did; would it be OK
to lock them in a room without food and water until they die?
>Also, as far back as I can recall the courts have had the authority to
>settle disputes between family members.
>
So this was simply a dispute between family members?
Side 1, "We are willing to become her guardians and see to it that she gets
rehabilitation as best as possible, recognizing she will be living at
greatly diminished capacity"
Side 2, "She wouldn't want to live this way, she told me so once while we
were watching a movie. So let's torture her by making her die of thirst.
The saliva spray will make it not so painful"
>What is new, is legislative meddling in what should be a private family
>decision.
No, what is new is a court ordering the dehydration and starvation of an
otherwise functioning human, although at a greatly diminished mental
capability. What is further new is the refusal to acknowledge testimony by
caregivers and other witnesses that the term "brain dead" was very much
overstated. After all, in all other capital punishment cases, the mantra
is always, "if there's the least bit of doubt, we shouldn't carry out this
death sentance" So in this case, the single witness who said, "she wants
to die" was able to trump all the other witnesses.
Yeah, Nick, this was a bad idea. I'm done, I've said my piece, this
whole incident has really bothered me; the fact that those who so rail
against any kind of perceived inhumane treatment of anything all of a
sudden were so eager to pile on to actually kill this person who only
needed help to eat and drink.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone have any insight--got a spam email offering low cost software,
> but the curious part, is that it was followed by "monkeying hardware"
> as part of the headline.
>
> Is there some kind of reason for that, and other gibberish, that these
> halfwits spout?
>
It's terrorists code, I tell you. ;~)
On 4 Apr 2005 15:03:17 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3 Apr 2005 13:10:06 -0700, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anyone have any insight--got a spam email offering low cost software,
>> but the curious part, is that it was followed by "monkeying hardware"
>> as part of the headline.
>>
>> Is there some kind of reason for that, and other gibberish, that these
>> halfwits spout?
>
>They're trying to defeat bayesian filters by making the subject line
>and message look less spammish. That's why some of the spam now has
>excerpts of normal text at the end, or other techniques.
>
>Death penalty for spammers. It's the best way.
Well, since we've recently determined that it is OK to judicially order
the dehydration and starvation of a non-terminal human being simply because
that person is existing at a diminished capacity, it seems that since
spammers by definition exist in a state of diminished capacity, the case
could be made for similar treatment of spammers.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+