1996-12-02 - Re: denial of service and government rights

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Message Hash: 996ad5ddee32eecb3b8b1c9bd7a0c160597b8bf01b444a6b48248980a02de073
Message ID: <32A22FE8.2A1D@gte.net>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961201200504.5120Z-100000@polaris>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-02 01:25:25 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:25:25 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:25:25 -0800 (PST)
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: denial of service and government rights
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961201200504.5120Z-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <32A22FE8.2A1D@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Black Unicorn wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Black Unicorn wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > > Example:  George Bush's old pal at the Wash. DC P.R. firm hires the
> > > > > niece(?) of a Kuwaiti official to testify in front of Congress in full
> > > > > view of the American people on television, that the Iraquis were throwing
> > > > > babies out of incubators in Kuwait, thereby securing the necessary votes
> > > > > in Congress to prosecute the Gulf War.


> Fraud is an excellent answer because it is a meaningless answer.  Fraud is
> traditionally used to prosecutue those not-quite-a-crime cases because the
> definition essentially comes down to : "That guy did something we don't
> like."

[much drivel snipped]

So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on
essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and
which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with
it.  You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?

If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse
than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as
correct.  Things are bad indeed.