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: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Organization: is for people who don't have real work to do
: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 facts aren't "brought to life". The facts are. They are merely
examined, such as they may be known, at trial. This is the difference
between being guilty of the crime (in fact) and being FOUND guilty (in
:>: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.
Identified. What actually happened does not change due to mistakes or
ignorance in 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?
I fear that your interpretation is the metaphysical one. Only reality
as interpreted through a court exists under your 'rules'. This is
manifestly silly, as the simplest thought experiment shows.
:>: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
Yes, the law varies from place to place. If I violate the law IN
FACT, I AM guilty. If I get caught and convicted, I am FOUND guilty.
Consider this simple thought experiment. Suppose that I am indeed in
your hypothetical jurisdiction where defense of property is not
allowed and I shoot the burglar. We then go to court for trial and I
further lie under oath about what happened, explaining to the court
that I was in fear for my life and therefore shooting him was simple
self defense. Suppose further that the court believes my statements
contrary to the fact and finds me innocent.
Your position is that no crime was therefore committed.
My position is that TWO crimes were committed; the original shooting
and the perjury to cover it up. I merely wasn't caught committing
Your position is that taken by criminal sociopaths. There is no
'fact', no 'right' and no 'wrong', no violations of any kind, and the
only crime is being caught and convicted.
:>: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?
Detection is irrelevant to what happened. Your argument is that a
tree falling in the forrest creates no compression waves in the
atmosphere if no one is there to hear it. I maintain that the
compression waves still existed, regardless of the presence of a
: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
And I'd suggest this is just Paul Adam looking for another wrangle and
that perhaps he should endeavour to get a life, instead.
:>: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.
It's both. Heisenberg says you can't look without affecting the thing
you're looking at. That "probability function" I mentioned collapsing
is the Schroedinger equations collapsing to a specific solution.
In other words, it's the eyes of Heisenberg, but Schroedinger owns the
:>: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.
Yes, but that's irrelevant to what ACTUALLY happened. Your view seems
to be that 'spin' is reality.
:>: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.
Irrelevant statement. Mere 'spin' on your part.
:>: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.
How do you know? Was he tried and acquitted? If I shoot you and am
not charged, are you still alive?
: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)
No, there were outright lies. The fact that he wasn't charged doesn't
mean he didn't commit the crime. By your notion, all those uncaught
perpetrators out there have committed no crimes. Rather leaves one
wondering how you interpret the phrase "unsolved crime".
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of