The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:37:21 +0100
Organization: Wholesale Lunacy
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 20:50:03 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-S ()
In message , Fred J. McCall
>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>:A homicide victim dies. Is the homicide murder? Manslaughter?
>Depends on the circumstances. But note that it does NOT depend on
>what happens at trial. The facts don't change.
How are the facts brought to life? At the trial. Therefore it depends
_completely_ upon what happens at the trial.
>:The determination that a killing is the crime of murder is a judicial
>:one reached well after the act. What looks like murder can be turned
>:into self-defence: what is claimed as justifiable homicide can get you
>:banged up for life.
>No, the court determination can be changed. What actually happened
And how is "What actually happened" identified? In the court.
Your concept is marvellously metaphysical, since you insist on an
absolutist determination which apparently springs into existence... but
cannot then be detected or measured. So what use is it?
>:If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him, are you instantly
>:and automatically a murderer?
>Around here we call that 'suicide'. If he's in my house and I shoot
>him, he self-inflicted by breaking in.
Whereas elsewhere you can be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder. It
seems these intangible philosophical constructs are extremely
>:How does any of what happened emerge and how are the facts learned?
>It's irrelevant to what actually happened. Someone can be CONVICTED
>of murder and not have committed murder. Someone can be ACQUITTED and
>have committed murder. Those are FACTS.
So, how do you detect these crimes?
I'd suggest that if you're beating your chest to defend something that
can't be identified, detected or measured in any way, you're really just
indulging in mental masturbation until you come up with a workable
>:The particle decays, whether we watch
>:it or not. But how do we determine what happened?
>Ah, but in the Schroedinger case, the EXAMINATION actually affects
>what happens. The mere act of examining can cause the probability
>function to decay to a different solution.
That's Heisenberg, not Schroedinger.
>:In the case of crime,
>:it's through a court of law, and both the UK and US have enshrined the
>:principle of "innocent until proven guilty".
>Under law, not in fact. The facts are what they are. What the court
>does or does not do does not change them.
It does, though, change which facts are presented, which are admitted as
material, and which are rejected.
>:Should the burden of proof be on the accuser, or on the accused?
>In court or in reality? In reality, there is no 'burden of proof'.
>Things are what they are.
>:OJ was charged and tried and acquitted. Clinton wasn't even tried.
>But does the acquittal alter THE FACTS? OJ was either guilty or he
>was not. What the court found doesn't affect that. Clinton did what
>he did. What it was is not affected by whether he was tried for it or
And it wasn't perjury, however much you want to insist it was.
It _was_ unethical and misleading, but it was legal. If he hadn't been a
lawyer he'd have got away clean (except if he hadn't been a lawyer he
wouldn't have thought of it in the first place)
Paul J. Adam
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of