On 19 Dec, 03:08, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Tapio Erola <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> > This, btw. is one of the reasons I'm concerned about the negative
> > effects of so-called "international tribunals":
> > A Dictator whose populace is rebelling faces a choice: Crack down
> > (kill, torture and so on) or retire in exile to some other country.
> > Now, exile ain't too bad, especially when you have few hundred
> > millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. Not as fun as being
> > a dictator, but it sure beats the prison cell or firing squad.
> > Now, with some "international tribunal" breathing down your neck you
> > know that you aren't safe in exile. So, it's more logical to roll
> > the dice and crack down, kill the dissidents and hang on your power.

But you'd do that anyway, if you could. This isn't chess where you
agree "mate in three" and shake hands and retire without playing out
the endgame. While you're in power you work up your escape clause in
case, and if things are at the fight-or-flight point then you make the
same judgment to make your stand, or to get to the airport while you
still can, that you would do if there /wasn't/ an International
Criminal Court.

> Good point. The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes"
> laws tell crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next
> victim, as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't
> increase the penalty if they are.

Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in practice
that you're inside until and unless the parole service decides that
you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not to offend
again - at least as much as any other man in the street. That
calculation will be different if you killed. Also, a murderer is
pursued far more vigorously than a pickpocket, mugger, or burglar.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> writes:

> On 19 Dec, 03:08, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Tapio Erola <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> > This, btw. is one of the reasons I'm concerned about the negative
>> > effects of so-called "international tribunals":
>> > A Dictator whose populace is rebelling faces a choice: Crack down
>> > (kill, torture and so on) or retire in exile to some other country.
>> > Now, exile ain't too bad, especially when you have few hundred
>> > millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. Not as fun as being
>> > a dictator, but it sure beats the prison cell or firing squad.
>> > Now, with some "international tribunal" breathing down your neck you
>> > know that you aren't safe in exile. So, it's more logical to roll
>> > the dice and crack down, kill the dissidents and hang on your power.
>
> But you'd do that anyway, if you could.

After the risk level becomes dangerous, you might not. Every gambler
knows that there are times when the better option is to cash your
chips and leave the game.

If you *cannot* leave, you continue the game. Probably losing, but you
might win. And more importantly, you will keep the game going for at
least some time.

How many extra killed dissidents is it worth to get a tyrant to Hague?

> This isn't chess where you agree "mate in three" and shake hands and
> retire without playing out the endgame.

Idi Amin, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, J-C Duvalier...

> While you're in power you work up your escape clause in case, and if
> things are at the fight-or-flight point then you make the same
> judgment to make your stand, or to get to the airport while you
> still can, that you would do if there /wasn't/ an International
> Criminal Court.

The Point is that with ICC the "run for the airport" becomes a far,
far less attractive option if it leads to Hague. And in troublesome
times, the value of this option will affect the Dictator's policies.

--
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith.
I consider the capacity for it terrifying." --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

On 19 Dec, 11:22, Tapio Erola <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> writes:
> > On 19 Dec, 03:08, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Tapio Erola <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> > This, btw. is one of the reasons I'm concerned about the negative
> >> > effects of so-called "international tribunals":
> >> > A Dictator whose populace is rebelling faces a choice: Crack down
> >> > (kill, torture and so on) or retire in exile to some other country.
> >> > Now, exile ain't too bad, especially when you have few hundred
> >> > millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. Not as fun as being
> >> > a dictator, but it sure beats the prison cell or firing squad.
> >> > Now, with some "international tribunal" breathing down your neck you
> >> > know that you aren't safe in exile. So, it's more logical to roll
> >> > the dice and crack down, kill the dissidents and hang on your power.
>
> > But you'd do that anyway, if you could.
>
> After the risk level becomes dangerous, you might not. Every gambler
> knows that there are times when the better option is to cash your
> chips and leave the game.
>
> If you *cannot* leave, you continue the game. Probably losing, but you
> might win. And more importantly, you will keep the game going for at
> least some time.
>
> How many extra killed dissidents is it worth to get a tyrant to Hague?
>
> > This isn't chess where you agree "mate in three" and shake hands and
> > retire without playing out the endgame.
>
> Idi Amin, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, J-C Duvalier...
>
> > While you're in power you work up your escape clause in case, and if
> > things are at the fight-or-flight point then you make the same
> > judgment to make your stand, or to get to the airport while you
> > still can, that you would do if there /wasn't/ an International
> > Criminal Court.
>
> The Point is that with ICC the "run for the airport" becomes a far,
> far less attractive option if it leads to Hague. And in troublesome
> times, the value of this option will affect the Dictator's policies.

Okay now... shall we talk about Burma?

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws tell
>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next victim,
>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't increase
>> the penalty if they are.

> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.

Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:43:28 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On 19 Dec, 03:08, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Tapio Erola <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>> > This, btw. is one of the reasons I'm concerned about the negative
>> > effects of so-called "international tribunals":
>> > A Dictator whose populace is rebelling faces a choice: Crack down
>> > (kill, torture and so on) or retire in exile to some other country.
>> > Now, exile ain't too bad, especially when you have few hundred
>> > millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. Not as fun as being
>> > a dictator, but it sure beats the prison cell or firing squad.
>> > Now, with some "international tribunal" breathing down your neck you
>> > know that you aren't safe in exile. So, it's more logical to roll
>> > the dice and crack down, kill the dissidents and hang on your power.
>
>But you'd do that anyway, if you could. This isn't chess where you
>agree "mate in three" and shake hands and retire without playing out
>the endgame. While you're in power you work up your escape clause in
>case, and if things are at the fight-or-flight point then you make the
>same judgment to make your stand, or to get to the airport while you
>still can, that you would do if there /wasn't/ an International
>Criminal Court.


Tell that to Augusto Pinochet. Or, for that matter, Alberto Fujimori,
Leopold Galtieri, Luis Garcia Menza, Idi Amin Dada, Jean-Claude Duvalier,
Suharto of Indonesia, and the entire South African Apartheid Regime.

All of them stepped down voluntarily[1], long before the "kill all the
dissidents and hope for the best" stage. All of them expected to live
out their lives in comfortable retirement. I do not believe, and I hope
you are not fool enough to believe, that any of them would have stepped
down if they had expected instead to spend the rest of their lives in
a prison, or dangling from a noose.

Fortunately for their people, the dissidents among them especially, all
but Pinochet and Fujimori were justified in their expectation of a
comfortable retirement, and those two didn't know what was coming.
But thanks to them, current and future dictators *do* know what's
coming.

Care to make a wager as to how many Zimbabweans will have to die before
they can pry their freedom from President-For-Life Mugabe's cold, dead
fingers? Or whether Kim Jong-Il will surrender power this side of the
grave?


[1] Or perhaps were forced to step down by their lieutenants, who then
managed the transition to democracy before themselves going off into
quiet retirement. Since the lieutenants are almost as culpable as El
Presidente for the old regime's crimes, the same dynamic applies.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article <6npkm35pk6f50lvdjppv7vb0nrvb61ca8q@4ax.com>,
John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> said:

> Fortunately for their people, the dissidents among them
> especially, all but Pinochet and Fujimori were justified in their
> expectation of a comfortable retirement, and those two didn't know
> what was coming. But thanks to them, current and future dictators
> *do* know what's coming.

And Fujimori would have been fine if he hadn't gone *back*. Is
there a special Darwin Award category for ex-dictators?

(Okay, technically he only went to Chile, not Peru. But even so,
getting close enough, geographically and culturally, to get arrested
and extradited like that is Not Smart.)

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>

"William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fkd6kc$mp8$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <6npkm35pk6f50lvdjppv7vb0nrvb61ca8q@4ax.com>,
> John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> said:
>
>> Fortunately for their people, the dissidents among them
>> especially, all but Pinochet and Fujimori were justified in their
>> expectation of a comfortable retirement, and those two didn't know
>> what was coming. But thanks to them, current and future dictators
>> *do* know what's coming.
>
> And Fujimori would have been fine if he hadn't gone *back*. Is
> there a special Darwin Award category for ex-dictators?
>
> (Okay, technically he only went to Chile, not Peru. But even so,
> getting close enough, geographically and culturally, to get arrested
> and extradited like that is Not Smart.)

And Pinochet probably could have found a comfortable place to retire
to [1], but he insisted on staying in Chile and acting like he'd been
some kind of hero.

1. Saudi Arabia, perhaps, where he and Idi Amin could have compared
notes.

On 20 Dec, 02:33, John Schilling <schil...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:43:28 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>
>
>
>
>
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On 19 Dec, 03:08, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Tapio Erola <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> > This, btw. is one of the reasons I'm concerned about the negative
> >> > effects of so-called "international tribunals":
> >> > A Dictator whose populace is rebelling faces a choice: Crack down
> >> > (kill, torture and so on) or retire in exile to some other country.
> >> > Now, exile ain't too bad, especially when you have few hundred
> >> > millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. Not as fun as being
> >> > a dictator, but it sure beats the prison cell or firing squad.
> >> > Now, with some "international tribunal" breathing down your neck you
> >> > know that you aren't safe in exile. So, it's more logical to roll
> >> > the dice and crack down, kill the dissidents and hang on your power.
>
> >But you'd do that anyway, if you could. This isn't chess where you
> >agree "mate in three" and shake hands and retire without playing out
> >the endgame. While you're in power you work up your escape clause in
> >case, and if things are at the fight-or-flight point then you make the
> >same judgment to make your stand, or to get to the airport while you
> >still can, that you would do if there /wasn't/ an International
> >Criminal Court.
>
> Tell that to Augusto Pinochet. Or, for that matter, Alberto Fujimori,
> Leopold Galtieri, Luis Garcia Menza, Idi Amin Dada, Jean-Claude Duvalier,
> Suharto of Indonesia, and the entire South African Apartheid Regime.
>
> All of them stepped down voluntarily[1], long before the "kill all the
> dissidents and hope for the best" stage. All of them expected to live
> out their lives in comfortable retirement. I do not believe, and I hope
> you are not fool enough to believe, that any of them would have stepped
> down if they had expected instead to spend the rest of their lives in
> a prison, or dangling from a noose.
>
> Fortunately for their people, the dissidents among them especially, all
> but Pinochet and Fujimori were justified in their expectation of a
> comfortable retirement, and those two didn't know what was coming.
> But thanks to them, current and future dictators *do* know what's
> coming.
>
> Care to make a wager as to how many Zimbabweans will have to die before
> they can pry their freedom from President-For-Life Mugabe's cold, dead
> fingers? Or whether Kim Jong-Il will surrender power this side of the
> grave?
>
> [1] Or perhaps were forced to step down by their lieutenants, who then
> managed the transition to democracy before themselves going off into
> quiet retirement. Since the lieutenants are almost as culpable as El
> Presidente for the old regime's crimes, the same dynamic applies.

So... you're arguing for immunity from prosecution, protection against
revenge attacks maybe, for all dictators and war criminals, to make
sure that they are able to stop whenever they like without fear of
reprisal? No - the idea is to make it that they don't /start/.

I think some situations, such as Zimbabwe, are greatly misrepresented
in mass media - since before UDI in that case. And if Robert Mugabe
needs to disappear discreetly any time soon, I expect he will be
looked after well in China.

wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:

> In article <6npkm35pk6f50lvdjppv7vb0nrvb61ca8q@4ax.com>,
> John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> said:
>
>> Fortunately for their people, the dissidents among them
>> especially, all but Pinochet and Fujimori were justified in their
>> expectation of a comfortable retirement, and those two didn't know
>> what was coming. But thanks to them, current and future dictators
>> *do* know what's coming.
>
> And Fujimori would have been fine if he hadn't gone *back*. Is
> there a special Darwin Award category for ex-dictators?

Note that Fujimori isn't first one for that particular stupidity.
For example, Jean-Bédel Bokassa fell into same trap.

--
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith.
I consider the capacity for it terrifying." --Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws tell
>>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next victim,
>>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't increase
>>> the penalty if they are.
>
>> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
>> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
>
>Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.

?

First off, Horton was on furlough, not parole. There's a difference.

Secondly, 16 states is not "most" states. You need 10 more to get to
"most."
--
"I aim to misbehave."
Malcolm Reynolds

"David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote in message
news:nh8lm3tdn8gjpg7kjefgke70ri878lu9fq@4ax.com...
> On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws
>>>> tell
>>>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next
>>>> victim,
>>>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't
>>>> increase
>>>> the penalty if they are.
>>
>>> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>>> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>>> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected
>>> not
>>> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
>>
>>Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>>politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>
> ?
>
> First off, Horton was on furlough, not parole. There's a
> difference.
>
> Secondly, 16 states is not "most" states. You need 10 more to get
> to
> "most."

Is 16 the number that have abolished it officially? In California, it
still exists legally, but is rarely given for serious crimes for the
reason Keith mentions.

On Dec 20, 9:47 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote in messagenews:nh8lm3tdn8gjpg7kjefgke70ri878lu9fq@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws
> >>>> tell
> >>>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next
> >>>> victim,
> >>>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't
> >>>> increase
> >>>> the penalty if they are.
>
> >>> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
> >>> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
> >>> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected
> >>> not
> >>> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
>
> >>Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
> >>politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>
> > ?
>
> > First off, Horton was on furlough, not parole. There's a
> > difference.
>
> > Secondly, 16 states is not "most" states. You need 10 more to get
> > to
> > "most."
>
> Is 16 the number that have abolished it officially? In California, it
> still exists legally, but is rarely given for serious crimes for the
> reason Keith mentions.

The Larry Singleton parole pretty much killed it.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:47:50 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
>> wrote:
>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws
>>>>> tell
>>>>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next
>>>>> victim,
>>>>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't
>>>>> increase
>>>>> the penalty if they are.
>>>
>>>> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>>>> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>>>> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected
>>>> not
>>>> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
>>>
>>>Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>>>politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> First off, Horton was on furlough, not parole. There's a
>> difference.
>>
>> Secondly, 16 states is not "most" states. You need 10 more to get
>> to "most."
>
>Is 16 the number that have abolished it officially?

According to Wiki, which cites a Newsday article that I can't pull up.

>In California, it
>still exists legally, but is rarely given for serious crimes for the
>reason Keith mentions.
--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
- Thomas Jefferson

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:58:03 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On 20 Dec, 02:33, John Schilling <schil...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:43:28 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie

>> >> > This, btw. is one of the reasons I'm concerned about the negative
>> >> > effects of so-called "international tribunals":
>> >> > A Dictator whose populace is rebelling faces a choice: Crack down
>> >> > (kill, torture and so on) or retire in exile to some other country.
>> >> > Now, exile ain't too bad, especially when you have few hundred
>> >> > millions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts. Not as fun as being
>> >> > a dictator, but it sure beats the prison cell or firing squad.
>> >> > Now, with some "international tribunal" breathing down your neck you
>> >> > know that you aren't safe in exile. So, it's more logical to roll
>> >> > the dice and crack down, kill the dissidents and hang on your power.

>> >But you'd do that anyway, if you could. This isn't chess where you
>> >agree "mate in three" and shake hands and retire without playing out
>> >the endgame. While you're in power you work up your escape clause in
>> >case, and if things are at the fight-or-flight point then you make the
>> >same judgment to make your stand, or to get to the airport while you
>> >still can, that you would do if there /wasn't/ an International
>> >Criminal Court.

>> Tell that to Augusto Pinochet. Or, for that matter, Alberto Fujimori,
>> Leopold Galtieri, Luis Garcia Menza, Idi Amin Dada, Jean-Claude Duvalier,
>> Suharto of Indonesia, and the entire South African Apartheid Regime.

>> All of them stepped down voluntarily[1], long before the "kill all the
>> dissidents and hope for the best" stage. All of them expected to live
>> out their lives in comfortable retirement. I do not believe, and I hope
>> you are not fool enough to believe, that any of them would have stepped
>> down if they had expected instead to spend the rest of their lives in
>> a prison, or dangling from a noose.

>> Fortunately for their people, the dissidents among them especially, all
>> but Pinochet and Fujimori were justified in their expectation of a
>> comfortable retirement, and those two didn't know what was coming.
>> But thanks to them, current and future dictators *do* know what's
>> coming.

>> Care to make a wager as to how many Zimbabweans will have to die before
>> they can pry their freedom from President-For-Life Mugabe's cold, dead
>> fingers? Or whether Kim Jong-Il will surrender power this side of the
>> grave?


>So... you're arguing for immunity from prosecution, protection against
>revenge attacks maybe, for all dictators and war criminals, to make
>sure that they are able to stop whenever they like without fear of
>reprisal?

No, just for the ones who step down peacefully in the end.


>No - the idea is to make it that they don't /start/.

Some of us have room for more than one idea. Making sure that dictators
and war criminals "don't start", that's a nifty idea. It's also best
accomplished by not letting them take the reins of power in the first
place.

If you've got an idea for how to prevent an established dictator from
starting with the atrocities, one that *actually works*, that might also
be a good thing.

But I'll take an actually workable idea for stopping mad dictators and
war criminals, over a naively unworkable idea for preventing them from
getting started. The threat of war crimes tribunals No Matter What,
demonstrably *does not work* as a way of prevnting mad dictators from
getting started with the war crimes. The carrot-and-stick approach of
possible comfortable retirement vs. possible war crimes tribunals,
*does* work.

So that's what I'm in favor of.


Plus, I don't think the idea is actually to make it that they don't start,
but to make people feel good that they punished the bad guy. If the guy
never starts, only the unusually foresighted will ever feel any sense of
accomplishment in stopping him. Retributive justice, though, that's the
sort of thing that makes everyone feel good. Even if it doesn't actually
*do* any good.


>I think some situations, such as Zimbabwe, are greatly misrepresented
>in mass media

Of course you do.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws tell
> >>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next victim,
> >>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't increase
> >>> the penalty if they are.
> >
> >> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
> >> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
> >> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
> >> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
> >
> >Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
> >politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>
> According to the Bureau of Justice,
>
> <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>
>
> Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
> which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government and
> the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states. These
> numbers represent a ~2% increase over 2005.
>
> Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to mandatory
> release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having completed a statutorily
> defined fraction of their sentence, and 40% by the discretion of state or
> federal parole boards.
>
> So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result of
> ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?

What about "three strikes", which may be all lesser crimes?

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:12:41 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>John Schilling wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>> >>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws tell
>> >>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next victim,
>> >>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't increase
>> >>> the penalty if they are.
>> >
>> >> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>> >> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>> >> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
>> >> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
>> >
>> >Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>> >politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>>
>> According to the Bureau of Justice,
>>
>> <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>
>>
>> Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
>> which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government and
>> the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states. These
>> numbers represent a ~2% increase over 2005.
>>
>> Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to mandatory
>> release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having completed a statutorily
>> defined fraction of their sentence, and 40% by the discretion of state or
>> federal parole boards.
>>
>> So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result of
>> ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?
>
>What about "three strikes", which may be all lesser crimes?

The existence of "three strikes" does not mean that "Most states have
abolished parole..."
--
"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any lingering myths
about the brilliance of Rhodes scholars."
Kris Kristofferson

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:12:41 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:


>John Schilling wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
>> wrote:

>> >Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> >>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws tell
>> >>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next victim,
>> >>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't increase
>> >>> the penalty if they are.

>> >> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>> >> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>> >> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
>> >> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.

>> >Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>> >politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.

>> According to the Bureau of Justice,

>> <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>

>> Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
>> which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government and
>> the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states. These
>> numbers represent a ~2% increase over 2005.

>> Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to mandatory
>> release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having completed a statutorily
>> defined fraction of their sentence, and 40% by the discretion of state or
>> federal parole boards.

>> So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result of
>> ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?

>What about "three strikes", which may be all lesser crimes?

What about it? What does "three strikes" have to do with the alleged
abolition of parole?

If you're planning to water down Keith's claim to, "... there are some
prisoners in some states who are not eligible for parole even though I
think they should be", then that's probably something Keith should have
done for himself. It's also close enough to a tautology as to be entirely
unworth mentioning.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system.
>> No politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.

> According to the Bureau of Justice,

> <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>

> Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
> which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government
> and the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states.

> Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to
> mandatory release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having
> completed a statutorily defined fraction of their sentence, and
> 40% by the discretion of state or federal parole boards.

> So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result
> of ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?

See, this is why I had you killfiled for a while. You'd come across
much better if you *politely* point out the seeming discrepancy.
Perhaps something like the following:

Keith, I'm confused. You say that many states have abolished
parole, but according to [URL] every state paroled people last year.
Could you clear this up for me, please? Thanks.

If I were to fail to respond to that query, you'd look good and I'd
look bad. If I were to successfully explain the discrepancy, we'd
both look good. More importantly, this newsgroup would remain a
pleasant and civilized place.

The way you phrased it, even if I were to fail to explain the
discrepancy, you'd look bad and I wouldn't, since most people would
figure I had an explanation but had justifiably killfiled you rather
than responding to someone who's frothing at the mouth.

Very likely, several more people have responded to your rant by
killfiling you, or even by giving up on this newsgroup and moving
to some more civilized forum.

I'm only going to this trouble because you often post useful and
interesting comments. You're not *always* mindlessly hurling
invective like some people I could name. But my patience is limited.
One more implication that I might be a liar and you go into my
permanent killfile.

Perhaps you'd like that. You'd be able to point out any number of
imagined inconsistencies without the bother of my responding and
showing everyone what a fool you are. But I think they already know.

The explanation for the discrepancy is simple: Virginia abolished
parole in 1995. This applies, however, only to *new* crimes,
committed in or after 1995. Courts had set earlier sentences based
on the expectation of eventual parole eligibility. So people will
continue to be paroled in Virginia for quite some time -- but only
people whose crimes were before 1995. Someone considering committing
a crime *today* that could lead to a possible life sentence is, or
ought to be, aware that in Virginia a life sentence today means
they will not leave prison alive.

As for early release, yes, in Virginia a person who has behaved well
in prison is eligible for release when they've served 85% of their
sentence. *This does not apply to a life sentence*.

Similarly in other states, and in the federal prison system.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 2007-12-21 19:21:20 -0800, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> said:

> Very likely, several more people have responded to your rant by
> killfiling you, or even by giving up on this newsgroup and moving
> to some more civilized forum.

Does anyone believe this?

Show of hands, votes, whatever -- does anyone think that John's post --
or Chrlton Wilbur's, to pick another where Keith tried the same gambit
-- made anyone killfile them or abandon the newsgroup?

If those people have all fled already, did anyone still here even consider it?

Keith's apparently convinced that if people tell him he's stupid or
wacko, it'll make other people flee.

Really? Anyone?

kdb

>>>>> "KB" == Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics> writes:

KB> On 2007-12-21 19:21:20 -0800, "Keith F. Lynch"
KB> <kfl@KeithLynch.net> said:
>> Very likely, several more people have responded to your rant by
>> killfiling you, or even by giving up on this newsgroup and
>> moving to some more civilized forum.

KB> Does anyone believe this?

KB> Show of hands, votes, whatever -- does anyone think that
KB> John's post -- or Charlton Wilbur's, to pick another where
KB> Keith tried the same gambit -- made anyone killfile them or
KB> abandon the newsgroup?

KB> If those people have all fled already, did anyone still here
KB> even consider it?

KB> Keith's apparently convinced that if people tell him he's
KB> stupid or wacko, it'll make other people flee.

I'm hoping, frankly, that it makes him flee back to rasf.fandom, where
he can hold forth with all the ****ing batshit insane theories he
cares to.

There may well be a newsgroup dedicated to loony ideas about
transportation where magic pixies make train cars go and Newton's law
about action-reaction operates differently with different states of
matter. I suspect he should be posting there, instead.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net

: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
: Very likely, several more people have responded to your rant

The only part of it that was even a little bit like a rant was
the last two lines. The other ten lines were neutral statements
of fact, along with a cite of the source.

I agree that he'd look better if he'd just left the last
two lines off, and it would have served much the same purpose.
On the other hand, I understand how hard it can be to restrain
oneself, sometimes.

And of course... *you*'d look better if you hadn't spent 30 lines
bemoaning the two, and only 15 about the substance of the post.

And of course, I'd look better if I didn't post this.
But I guess it's too late for that now...


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
: What does that have to do with anything I've ever posted?

He was making fun of your implied railcar design.
Exagerating a bit, of course.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Wayne Throop <throopw@sheol.org> wrote:
> And of course... *you*'d look better if you hadn't spent 30 lines
> bemoaning the two, and only 15 about the substance of the post.

It's my hope to encourage people to be a little more polite. There
are newsgroups for people who want to post and read insults and flames
rather than to have substantive conversations. This isn't one of them.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2007-12-21 19:21:20 -0800, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
> said:
>> Very likely, several more people have responded to your rant by
>> killfiling you, or even by giving up on this newsgroup and moving
>> to some more civilized forum.
>
> Does anyone believe this?
>
> Show of hands, votes, whatever -- does anyone think that John's post
> --
> or Chrlton Wilbur's, to pick another where Keith tried the same gambit
> -- made anyone killfile them or abandon the newsgroup?
>
> If those people have all fled already, did anyone still here even
> consider it?
> Keith's apparently convinced that if people tell him he's stupid or
> wacko, it'll make other people flee.
>
> Really? Anyone?
>
I'm sorry, I killfiled Keith Lynch sometime back so I have no idea what this
is about.

--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.

On 21 Dec 2007 22:21:20 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system.
>>> No politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>
>> According to the Bureau of Justice,
>
>> <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>
>
>> Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
>> which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government
>> and the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states.
>
>> Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to
>> mandatory release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having
>> completed a statutorily defined fraction of their sentence, and
>> 40% by the discretion of state or federal parole boards.
>
>> So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result
>> of ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?
>
>See, this is why I had you killfiled for a while. You'd come across
>much better if you *politely* point out the seeming discrepancy.
>Perhaps something like the following:

> Keith, I'm confused. You say that many states have abolished
> parole, but according to [URL] every state paroled people last year.
> Could you clear this up for me, please? Thanks.

>If I were to fail to respond to that query, you'd look good and I'd
>look bad. If I were to successfully explain the discrepancy, we'd
>both look good. More importantly, this newsgroup would remain a
>pleasant and civilized place.

It would be decidedly unpleasant to those of us who noticed you were
continuing to propagate disinformation.

Because you *do*. And you *don't* stop just because someone politely
points out your error. You simply ignore the correction and go on
repeating the original fallacy. I can think of three examples off
the top of my head, one within the past week.

But when we rudely call you a damn liar, you get all huffy and upset
and complain irately about it - and you stop repeating the fallacy
du jour, often permanently.

As near as the rest of us can tell, you are completely incapable of
ever believing yourself to have been wrong. Your brain processes,
"Keith, I think you are mistaken...", as if it were, "Keith, fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord..." But you have a strong dislike of being
called a liar, and when one of us calls you a liar it sets up an
aversion response on that subject.

If that's the only way we can stop you from saying things that aren't
true, that's what we'll do. It's not as good as showing you where
you went wrong, but it's what we've got.

And if the only reason you aren't a damn liar is the fanaticism with
which you sincerely hold your erroneous beliefs, that's not really
an improvement and arguably not really a difference. It's certainly
not something that makes this a polite and civilized place.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *





>The way you phrased it, even if I were to fail to explain the
>discrepancy, you'd look bad and I wouldn't, since most people would
>figure I had an explanation but had justifiably killfiled you rather
>than responding to someone who's frothing at the mouth.
>
>Very likely, several more people have responded to your rant by
>killfiling you, or even by giving up on this newsgroup and moving
>to some more civilized forum.
>
>I'm only going to this trouble because you often post useful and
>interesting comments. You're not *always* mindlessly hurling
>invective like some people I could name. But my patience is limited.
>One more implication that I might be a liar and you go into my
>permanent killfile.
>
>Perhaps you'd like that. You'd be able to point out any number of
>imagined inconsistencies without the bother of my responding and
>showing everyone what a fool you are. But I think they already know.
>
>The explanation for the discrepancy is simple: Virginia abolished
>parole in 1995. This applies, however, only to *new* crimes,
>committed in or after 1995. Courts had set earlier sentences based
>on the expectation of eventual parole eligibility. So people will
>continue to be paroled in Virginia for quite some time -- but only
>people whose crimes were before 1995. Someone considering committing
>a crime *today* that could lead to a possible life sentence is, or
>ought to be, aware that in Virginia a life sentence today means
>they will not leave prison alive.
>
>As for early release, yes, in Virginia a person who has behaved well
>in prison is eligible for release when they've served 85% of their
>sentence. *This does not apply to a life sentence*.
>
>Similarly in other states, and in the federal prison system.

James Gassaway wrote:

> I'm sorry, I killfiled Keith Lynch sometime back so I have no idea what this
> is about.

Well, whatever you do, don't call him a name. You'll decimate the
newsgroup with your hate.

--
Robert Hutchinson

Robert Hutchinson wrote:
> James Gassaway wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I killfiled Keith Lynch sometime back so I have no idea
>> what this is about.
>
> Well, whatever you do, don't call him a name. You'll decimate the
> newsgroup with your hate.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean but I suspect it would be good for
your blood pressure to killfile him as well. *shrug*

--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.

James Gassaway wrote:
> Robert Hutchinson wrote:
>> James Gassaway wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry, I killfiled Keith Lynch sometime back so I have no idea
>>> what this is about.
>> Well, whatever you do, don't call him a name. You'll decimate the
>> newsgroup with your hate.
>
> Not sure what that's supposed to mean but I suspect it would be good for
> your blood pressure to killfile him as well. *shrug*

My blood pressure's fine, thanks. The only time Keith ever irks me even
a little is when he both argues A) for something I agree with him about,
and B) incredibly poorly.

--
Robert Hutchinson

Robert Hutchinson <servoid@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Stirling has reported good results from automatically and
>> permanently killfiling *everyone*, without warning, who is rude
>> and insulting. I'm considering doing the same.

> Yes, there's your newsgroup behavior role model, right there.
> It is to laugh.

I disagree with his politics, but I enjoy his writing, including his
all-too-rare newsgroup postings. And he has the ability, essential
to a famous writer and a good idea for all of us, to ignore unfounded
criticism rather than wasting much of his time responding to attacks.

If I have any character flaw, wasting time searching for all mentions
of my name and responding if I think they're unjustified attacks is it.

Nobody reads this newsgroup in hopes of reading personal attacks, but
nobody reads it in hopes of seeing defenses against personal attacks
either. I should let my substantive postings speak for themselves,
rather than arguing I-said, he-said, I-meant, he-meant.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> Because you *do*. And you *don't* stop just because someone
> politely points out your error. You simply ignore the correction
> and go on repeating the original fallacy. I can think of three
> examples off the top of my head, one within the past week.

If anyone else can think of any examples, ever, please tell me. John,
don't bother, because I won't see it. (If John does, and his examples
aren't obviously bogus, everyone else should please feel free to
forward it to me if they want to see my response.)

As everyone who has been paying attention knows, I always accept
supported corrections on the rare occasions when I make a mistake of
fact, and I seldom if ever make the same mistake twice. The most
recent example is suspensions on railcars, which I didn't know
existed. Now I do, and I won't make that mistake again.

> As near as the rest of us can tell, you are completely incapable of
> ever believing yourself to have been wrong.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. See above.

> But you have a strong dislike of being called a liar,

I certainly do. It's about the worst thing anyone can be called,
since it cuts off all possibility of further communication, not just
with the accuser, but also with anyone who believes him. How can I
say anything to anyone if they will ignore it as mere noise?

Lying precludes good employment and meaningful relationships. That's
one reason I am careful to *never* lie, even when there was no chance
of my being caught, and a large downside to telling the truth. I've
paid a lot for my well-deserved reputation as an honest person, and I
intensely dislike someone trying to steal that from me, as it's by far
the most valuable thing I own.

Shakespeare said it better:

He who steals my purse steals trash. 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has
been enslaved to thousands. But, he who steals my good name takes
something that enriches him not, and leaves me very poor, indeed.

Fortunately, few people are likely to pay attention to your bile.
It's not as if you had singled me out, after all. Just yesterday
in this newsgroup you called Robert Sneddon a liar.

> and when one of us calls you a liar it sets up an aversion response
> on that subject.

A claim that I'm arguing in bad faith precludes any kind of
constructive conversation.

All of this was in response to my proving you were you wrong the last
time you said I was a "Damn fool or damn liar." I see you didn't have
the courtesy to acknowledge that (as usual) you were wrong and I was
right.

In the unlikely event that John ever posts anything that anyone thinks
is worth reading, or that they'd like to see my response to, everyone
should please feel free to forward it to me. Otherwise, I won't see it.

*PLONK*
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 23 Dec 2007 17:33:35 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>> Because you *do*. And you *don't* stop just because someone
>> politely points out your error. You simply ignore the correction
>> and go on repeating the original fallacy. I can think of three
>> examples off the top of my head, one within the past week.

>If anyone else can think of any examples, ever, please tell me. John,
>don't bother, because I won't see it. (If John does, and his examples
>aren't obviously bogus, everyone else should please feel free to
>forward it to me if they want to see my response.)

[...]

>In the unlikely event that John ever posts anything that anyone thinks
>is worth reading, or that they'd like to see my response to, everyone
>should please feel free to forward it to me. Otherwise, I won't see it.

>*PLONK*

Anyone care to make a wager as to how long it lasts this time?


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:42:13 -0800, Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics>
wrote:

>On 2007-12-21 19:21:20 -0800, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> said:
>
>> Very likely, several more people have responded to your rant by
>> killfiling you, or even by giving up on this newsgroup and moving
>> to some more civilized forum.
>
>Does anyone believe this?
>
>Show of hands, votes, whatever -- does anyone think that John's post --
>or Chrlton Wilbur's, to pick another where Keith tried the same gambit
>-- made anyone killfile them or abandon the newsgroup?
>
>If those people have all fled already, did anyone still here even consider it?
>
>Keith's apparently convinced that if people tell him he's stupid or
>wacko, it'll make other people flee.
>
>Really? Anyone?

Not me. But, then again, I don't killfile on argumentative style.
John Schilling is sometimes brusque, but Keith can be very annoying.
--
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."
-Lazarus Long

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:05:47 -0800, John Schilling
<schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

>On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
>wrote:
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>>>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws tell
>>>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next victim,
>>>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't increase
>>>> the penalty if they are.
>>
>>> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>>> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>>> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
>>> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
>>
>>Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>>politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>
>According to the Bureau of Justice,
>
><www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>
>
>Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
>which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government and
>the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states. These
>numbers represent a ~2% increase over 2005.
>
>Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to mandatory
>release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having completed a statutorily
>defined fraction of their sentence, and 40% by the discretion of state or
>federal parole boards.
>
>So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result of
>ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?

The fact of the matter is that only 16 states and the Feds have
"abolished parole." While that is far more than I would have guessed,
it does not constitute "most."
--
"Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions
about it, but it must be done."
The Operative

On 22 Dec 2007 14:36:33 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>Wayne Throop <throopw@sheol.org> wrote:

>> And of course... *you*'d look better if you hadn't spent 30 lines
>> bemoaning the two, and only 15 about the substance of the post.
>
>It's my hope to encourage people to be a little more polite. There
>are newsgroups for people who want to post and read insults and flames
>rather than to have substantive conversations. This isn't one of them.

If you want people to be more polite, then quit spreading egregious
disinformation and quit driving people insane by purveying your skewed
view of the world.
--
"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
daughters.
- Genghis Khan, 1226

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:54:54 -0800, "James Gassaway"
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>Robert Hutchinson wrote:
>> James Gassaway wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry, I killfiled Keith Lynch sometime back so I have no idea
>>> what this is about.
>>
>> Well, whatever you do, don't call him a name. You'll decimate the
>> newsgroup with your hate.
>
>Not sure what that's supposed to mean but I suspect it would be good for
>your blood pressure to killfile him as well. *shrug*

I get more amusement than stress out of Keith.
--
"I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair'
in connection with income tax policies."
- William F. Buckley

On 2007-12-23 16:34:05 -0800, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<daveloewe@charter.net> said:

> On 22 Dec 2007 14:36:33 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Wayne Throop <throopw@sheol.org> wrote:
>
>>> And of course... *you*'d look better if you hadn't spent 30 lines
>>> bemoaning the two, and only 15 about the substance of the post.
>>
>> It's my hope to encourage people to be a little more polite. There
>> are newsgroups for people who want to post and read insults and flames
>> rather than to have substantive conversations. This isn't one of them.
>
> If you want people to be more polite, then quit spreading egregious
> disinformation and quit driving people insane by purveying your skewed
> view of the world.

Hey, maybe Keith will killfile everyone. That would make the newsgroup
a more agreeable place for him, and a saner place for the rest of us.

kdb

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Robert Hutchinson wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Stirling has reported good results from automatically and
>>> permanently killfiling *everyone*, without warning, who is rude
>>> and insulting. I'm considering doing the same.
>
>> Yes, there's your newsgroup behavior role model, right there.
>> It is to laugh.
>
> I disagree with his politics, but I enjoy his writing, including his
> all-too-rare newsgroup postings.

Including when he's being a complete ***?

(I don't know why I'm asking. A blind spot is a blind spot.)

--
Robert Hutchinson

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:29 -0800, John Schilling
<schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

> Anyone care to make a wager as to how long it lasts this time?

Precisely 90 days, in my case.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:33:29 -0800, John Schilling
<schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

>On 23 Dec 2007 17:33:35 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
>wrote:
>>John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>> Because you *do*. And you *don't* stop just because someone
>>> politely points out your error. You simply ignore the correction
>>> and go on repeating the original fallacy. I can think of three
>>> examples off the top of my head, one within the past week.
>
>>If anyone else can think of any examples, ever, please tell me. John,
>>don't bother, because I won't see it. (If John does, and his examples
>>aren't obviously bogus, everyone else should please feel free to
>>forward it to me if they want to see my response.)
>
>[...]
>
>>In the unlikely event that John ever posts anything that anyone thinks
>>is worth reading, or that they'd like to see my response to, everyone
>>should please feel free to forward it to me. Otherwise, I won't see it.
>
>>*PLONK*
>
>Anyone care to make a wager as to how long it lasts this time?

Didn't Keith announce that he was only going to read messages posted
*only* to rasff sometime earlier this year?
--
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."
- Mark Twain

David V. Loewe, Jr <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote:
> John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>> Anyone care to make a wager as to how long it lasts this time?

Put me down for "permanent." John has had his one free bite already.

> Didn't Keith announce that he was only going to read messages posted
> *only* to rasff sometime earlier this year?

No.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:30:43 -0600, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<daveloewe@charter.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:05:47 -0800, John Schilling
><schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>>On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
>>wrote:
>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> The same applies to ordinary criminals. "Three strikes" laws tell
>>>>> crooks that they might as well go ahead and kill their next victim,
>>>>> as it decreases their chances of being caught, but doesn't increase
>>>>> the penalty if they are.
>>>
>>>> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>>>> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>>>> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
>>>> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.

>>>Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>>>politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.

>>According to the Bureau of Justice,

>><www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>

>>Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
>>which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government and
>>the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states. These
>>numbers represent a ~2% increase over 2005.

>>Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to mandatory
>>release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having completed a statutorily
>>defined fraction of their sentence, and 40% by the discretion of state or
>>federal parole boards.

>>So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result of
>>ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?

>The fact of the matter is that only 16 states and the Feds have
>"abolished parole." While that is far more than I would have guessed,
>it does not constitute "most."

And the only way you get to sixteen states + feds is if you truncate
things like, "abolished parole for violent felonies", to "abolished
parole".


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On 2007-12-23 20:00:31 -0800, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<daveloewe@charter.net> said:

> Didn't Keith announce that he was only going to read messages posted
> *only* to rasff sometime earlier this year?

You may be thinking of this message, in which Keith announced his
intention not to read or write any more crossposted messages:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/browse_frm/thread/867a9e65e6c03b20/25cfbb82503f7799?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=KeithLynch+crossposted#25cfbb82503f7799

Sadly,

he didn't keep that promise.

kdb

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:53:51 -0800, John Schilling
<schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:30:43 -0600, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
><daveloewe@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:05:47 -0800, John Schilling
>><schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>>On 19 Dec 2007 20:27:22 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>>>>> Well, no. Not all "life sentences" are equal. Life means in
>>>>> practice that you're inside until and unless the parole service
>>>>> decides that you've paid the debt to society and can be expected not
>>>>> to offend again - at least as much as any other man in the street.
>
>>>>Most states have abolished parole, as has the federal system. No
>>>>politician wants another Willie Horton scandal.
>
>>>According to the Bureau of Justice,
>
>>><www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus06.htm>
>
>>>Approximately 440,000 prisoners were released on parole in 2006, of
>>>which approximately 37,000 were paroled by the Federal government and
>>>the rest by the various states. *All* of the various states. These
>>>numbers represent a ~2% increase over 2005.
>
>>>Of the prisoners released on parole, about 60% were subject to mandatory
>>>release due to e.g. prison overcrowding or having completed a statutorily
>>>defined fraction of their sentence, and 40% by the discretion of state or
>>>federal parole boards.
>
>>>So, was this propagation of disinformation on your part the result of
>>>ignorance, or malice? Damn fool or damn liar?
>
>>The fact of the matter is that only 16 states and the Feds have
>>"abolished parole." While that is far more than I would have guessed,
>>it does not constitute "most."
>
>And the only way you get to sixteen states + feds is if you truncate
>things like, "abolished parole for violent felonies", to "abolished
>parole".

Again, that figure comes from an article on Wikipedia which cites a
Newsday article that I can't get to come up - so I'm not willing to
say yea OR nay to that. Also, I'm willing to give him a pass on
states where they still do paroles for prisoners incarcerated before
that ban came into effect.
--
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass"
Ian Anderson

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:05:08 -0800, Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.com>
wrote:

>On 2007-12-23 20:00:31 -0800, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
><daveloewe@charter.net> said:
>
>> Didn't Keith announce that he was only going to read messages posted
>> *only* to rasff sometime earlier this year?
>
>You may be thinking of this message, in which Keith announced his
>intention not to read or write any more crossposted messages:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/browse_frm/thread/867a9e65e6c03b20/25cfbb82503f7799?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=KeithLynch+crossposted#25cfbb82503f7799

Precisely the thing.

>Sadly,
>
>he didn't keep that promise.
--
"Anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on
the grounds of self-defense."
- Kevin Bold

In article <fkmnnv$gkr$1@panix1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>['Liar' is] about the worst thing anyone can be called,
>since it cuts off all possibility of further communication, not just
>with the accuser, but also with anyone who believes him. How can I
>say anything to anyone if they will ignore it as mere noise?

There is no middle ground between accepting someone as honest,
and dismissing everything they say as "mere noise"?

--
David Goldfarb |"Obviously proud of knowing a word I didn't know,
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu |Horace carefully repeated, 'Meretricious!'.
goldfarb@csua.berkeley.edu |Whereupon I replied, 'And a happy new year to you.'"
| -- Isaac Asimov

David V. Loewe, Jr <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote:
> Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.com> wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> said:
>>> Didn't Keith announce that he was only going to read messages
>>> posted *only* to rasff sometime earlier this year?

>> You may be thinking of this message, in which Keith announced his
>> intention not to read or write any more crossposted messages:

>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/browse_frm/thread/867a9e65e6c03b20/25cfbb82503f7799?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=KeithLynch+crossposted#25cfbb82503f7799

> Precisely the thing.

>> Sadly,
>> he didn't keep that promise.

I really should stop wasting my time and everyone else's defending
myself against baseless slander, especially since anyone who care can
go to that URL and see for themselves what I really said. But since
at least two people seem to be confused, I'll point out that I clearly
said, "This is my last crossposted message for the foreseeable
future." That doesn't mean forever. I went on to explain that I was
reacting to the monster crossposted rasff-rasfw thread with over 400
posts per day. That has long since ceased, and the volume in rasff is
quite low. However, I *have not* crossposted anything between rasff
and rasfw since I made that posting.

And I certainly never said that I would cease reading all newsgroups
but rasff.

There have been a few posts crossposted between here and other
newsgroups (not rasff) that I followed up to without t******* the
newsgroups down to just one.

I certainly haven't broken any promises. And I don't know what's
supposed to be so sad about my crossposting to rec.arts.sf.science
when following up to someone else who had done the same.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 24 Dec 2007 22:55:25 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

>David V. Loewe, Jr <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote:
>> Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.com> wrote:
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> said:

>>>> Didn't Keith announce that he was only going to read messages
>>>> posted *only* to rasff sometime earlier this year?
>
>>> You may be thinking of this message, in which Keith announced his
>>> intention not to read or write any more crossposted messages:
>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/browse_frm/thread/867a9e65e6c03b20/25cfbb82503f7799?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=KeithLynch+crossposted#25cfbb82503f7799
>
>> Precisely the thing.
>
>>> Sadly,
>>> he didn't keep that promise.
>
>I really should stop wasting my time and everyone else's defending
>myself against baseless slander,

Dude!

"baseless SLANDER"?!?

>especially since anyone who care can
>go to that URL and see for themselves what I really said. But since
>at least two people seem to be confused,

No, I just figured that when you started up again, since you'd made a
point loudly announcing that you weren't going to read or post
cross-posted messages for a while, that you'd announce when you'd
recommence. I'd not seen such a message.

>I'll point out that I clearly
>said, "This is my last crossposted message for the foreseeable
>future." That doesn't mean forever. I went on to explain that I was
>reacting to the monster crossposted rasff-rasfw thread with over 400
>posts per day. That has long since ceased, and the volume in rasff is
>quite low. However, I *have not* crossposted anything between rasff
>and rasfw since I made that posting.
>
>And I certainly never said that I would cease reading all newsgroups
>but rasff.

And, since I wasn't sure, I asked for some clarification. Is there
something wrong with that?

>There have been a few posts crossposted between here and other
>newsgroups (not rasff) that I followed up to without t******* the
>newsgroups down to just one.
>
>I certainly haven't broken any promises. And I don't know what's
>supposed to be so sad about my crossposting to rec.arts.sf.science
>when following up to someone else who had done the same.
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward

On 2007-12-24 20:57:48 -0800, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<daveloewe@charter.net> said:

> On 24 Dec 2007 22:55:25 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
>> David V. Loewe, Jr <daveloewe@charter.net> wrote:
>>> Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.com> wrote:
>>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@charter.net> said:
>
>>>>> Didn't Keith announce that he was only going to read messages
>>>>> posted *only* to rasff sometime earlier this year?
>>
>>>> You may be thinking of this message, in which Keith announced his
>>>> intention not to read or write any more crossposted messages:
>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/browse_frm/thread/867a9e65e6c03b20/25cfbb82503f7799?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=KeithLynch+crossposted#25cfbb82503f7799

Precisely
>>>>
>>> the thing.
>>
>>>> Sadly,
>>>> he didn't keep that promise.
>>
>> I really should stop wasting my time and everyone else's defending
>> myself against baseless slander,
>
> Dude!
>
> "baseless SLANDER"?!?
>
>> especially since anyone who care can
>> go to that URL and see for themselves what I really said. But since
>> at least two people seem to be confused,
>
> No, I just figured that when you started up again, since you'd made a
> point loudly announcing that you weren't going to read or post
> cross-posted messages for a while, that you'd announce when you'd
> recommence. I'd not seen such a message.
>
>> I'll point out that I clearly
>> said, "This is my last crossposted message for the foreseeable
>> future." That doesn't mean forever.

I could foresee this future, though. It was very foreseeable.

> And, since I wasn't sure, I asked for some clarification. Is there
> something wrong with that?

Yes, your mistake was to ask a question and have it answered. Your
proper strategy should be to guess, assert your guess as fact and then
get cranky unless you're corrected politely enough.

kdb