For those considering Linux...

Ken Springer wrote:

Before going out on such an unsupportable limb, let me ask you a
question. What if you were accused of some crime for which you were not
guilty, and were on trial. Would you want any member of the jury to be
sitting here voting for guilty just because they *thought* or *believed*
you were guilty?

Well, let's not forget that the stakes, here, are not so high. This
is not a criminal case, and Moore is not facing the threat of prison.

--
'Whether five dollars or five hundred, the "advocates" believe that
any amount of money is too much and that their abuse of rational
people and constant propaganda is all thaf GNU/Linux developers need
to succeed.' - "Slimer", AKA "Doomsdrzej", lying shamelessly

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:39:31 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/22/17 4:57 AM, Wolffan wrote:
On 2017 Dec 22, Ken Springer wrote
(in article ):

On 12/21/17 9:38 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 8:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/21/17 5:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 3:25 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:13:31 -0500,
wrote:

On 2017 Dec 21, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:45:50 +1100, Lucifer
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:44:11 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

On 20 Dec 2017 17:17:34 GMT, ray wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:36:59 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...Ubuntu-17.10-B
IOS-
Corrupter

Linux corrupts your BIOS. Brilliant stuff.

One example of why I use Debian instead of Ubuntu.

Probably a good point, but I hope you'll understand why some people
might be reluctant to use Linux in general as a result of news like
this.

I have machines running Solaris 10 and 11.

And some people still use Atari STs to produce music. What's your
point?

His point is that he’s so pure that he uses 12-year-old OSes (almost
old
enough to be of interest to Roy Moore!) rather than pollute his
environment
with Mickeysoft or, worse, crApple, products,

Speaking of Roy Moore, do you have concrete evidence that the
allegations are true?

You mean other than the utterly obvious implication of him saying he
never dated a girl "without her mother's permission".

Hint for you: if you're dating adults, you don't need permission.

True, you don't need permission. But, it doesn't mean you can't ask. :-)

True... ...but really... ...come on...

...what are the odds?

Let's go to Vegas and find out!!!! G

Yea, the odds are long, but it's still possible. In some parts of the
country, those old fashioned customs are still honored.

Do I think he did it, or at least some of it? Yep. Will I tell you
he's guilty? Not a chance in H e double hockey sticks. Why?

Because I believe in one of the cornerstones of our justice system...
Innocent until proven guilty.

From listening to news reports, it would appear most people no longer
believe that.

There is no question as to whether or not Roy Moore is sexually attracted to
teenagers. He is. He has admitted it, numerous times, not least when he
stated that he was first attracted to his current wife when she was 15 or 16,
I forget which.

In case you haven't noticed, there is no magical switch that says before
a certain age you are _not_ attracted to someone, and after you reach
that age, you _will_ be attracted to someone.

That "age" is a cultural/societal/religious setting, *not* biological.

I graduated from high school in 1966. Unknown to me, there were at
least 2 married couples in my class. One already had a child.

My point? Attraction has nothing to do with an arbitrarily set age.

Agreed. As a teacher, I've taught at pretty much every level myself.
Just because none of the girls are people that I can actually date, it
doesn't change the fact that they are attractive. It's clear that
they're kids and the way they behave confirms it, but you can tell who
will end up being a beautiful woman very early on. I'm not sure that
I'd hit on them though.

The only question is whether or not he jumped the girls who
said he did.

Exactly. And at this point, that is still an open question. Unlike
others who have or quasi-have admitted sexual misconduct.
The man’s a kiddie fiddler. He has admitted it, several times.
The question is _which particular kiddies did he fiddle_, not whether or not
he’s a pervert. He says that he didn’t do _these particular girls_.
That’s not the point.

That is *exactly* the point. To date, every situation is a "he said,
she said" situation, which is _proof_ of nothing.

If men become stupid enough to automatically believe everything a
woman says - especially when it comes to rape - then all women of the
world will have the ultimate weapon in their hands, capable of taking
down absolutely everyone without question. They _will_ use it too on
anyone they dislike, not anyone who actually committed a crime. I
thought I lived in a society wherein a man is innocent until proven
guilty but the media - and their audience - are quickly changing that.

And that is why I find it disgusting when some try to
steer the discussion away to ‘innocent until proven guilty’, when they
know damn well that he will _never_ be proven guilty if only because the
statute of limitations on being a kiddie fiddler _for those particular girls_
expired a long time ago.

Before going out on such an unsupportable limb, let me ask you a
question. What if you were accused of some crime for which you were not
guilty, and were on trial. Would you want any member of the jury to be
sitting here voting for guilty just because they *thought* or *believed*
you were guilty?

Sadly, that's happened quite a few times. Even in cases where a man is
clearly innocent, because a jury member believes that the person is
guilty, they are often found guilty simply because the other members
are tired of waiting to get back to their respective families. Steven
Avery comes to mind.

The man was a prosecutor; it was his duty to hunt down and punish kiddie
fiddlers. The man was a judge. It was his duty to drop the hammer on kiddie
fiddlers. Instead, he was, and is, one. He is a disgusting waste of skin.

*If* true, you are correct. He should have known better. But for
years, powerful men in our society have thought they were above the law,
and perpetrated many illegal acts.

And, there are many cases where men (and I'm sure women) who have spent
years in jail for things they did *not* do because different reasons.

It can happen both ways.

Have you heard of Graham J. Zellick? He was legal professor in England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_J._Zellick He made a famous
statement that goes "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than
one innocent man is wrongfully convicted ... We know from bitter
experience that juries get things wrong. The Court of Appeal ought to be
more active in quashing convictions even though there has not been any
irregularity in the trial process."

Do you believe all efforts should be made to ensure no innocent person
should go to jail?

Liberals are too dim to think of how automatically believe a woman
when she claims to be a victim of rape can go wrong.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 01:51:18 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/21/17 9:38 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 8:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/21/17 5:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 3:25 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:13:31 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 2017 Dec 21, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:45:50 +1100, Lucifer
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:44:11 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

On 20 Dec 2017 17:17:34 GMT, ray wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:36:59 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...tu-17.10-BIOS-

Corrupter

Linux corrupts your BIOS. Brilliant stuff.

One example of why I use Debian instead of Ubuntu.

Probably a good point, but I hope you'll understand why some people
might be reluctant to use Linux in general as a result of news like
this.

I have machines running Solaris 10 and 11.

And some people still use Atari STs to produce music. What's your
point?

His point is that he’s so pure that he uses 12-year-old OSes (almost
old
enough to be of interest to Roy Moore!) rather than pollute his
environment
with Mickeysoft or, worse, crApple, products,

Speaking of Roy Moore, do you have concrete evidence that the
allegations are true?


You mean other than the utterly obvious implication of him saying he
never dated a girl "without her mother's permission".

Hint for you: if you're dating adults, you don't need permission.

True, you don't need permission. But, it doesn't mean you can't ask. :-)



True... ...but really... ...come on...

...what are the odds?

Let's go to Vegas and find out!!!! G

Yea, the odds are long, but it's still possible. In some parts of the
country, those old fashioned customs are still honored.

Do I think he did it, or at least some of it? Yep. Will I tell you
he's guilty? Not a chance in H e double hockey sticks. Why?

Because I believe in one of the cornerstones of our justice system...
Innocent until proven guilty.

From listening to news reports, it would appear most people no longer
believe that.

I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the cornerstones
of our judicial system, but personal opinion isn't part of the judicial
system so as citizens we aren't bound by that concept. To most people
who aren't sitting on a jury, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a
duck, it's probably a duck.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:39:31 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 12/22/17 4:57 AM, Wolffan wrote:
On 2017 Dec 22, Ken Springer wrote
(in article ):

On 12/21/17 9:38 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 8:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/21/17 5:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 3:25 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:13:31 -0500,
wrote:

On 2017 Dec 21, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:45:50 +1100, Lucifer
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:44:11 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

On 20 Dec 2017 17:17:34 GMT, ray wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:36:59 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...Ubuntu-17.10-B
IOS-
Corrupter

Linux corrupts your BIOS. Brilliant stuff.

One example of why I use Debian instead of Ubuntu.

Probably a good point, but I hope you'll understand why some people
might be reluctant to use Linux in general as a result of news like
this.

I have machines running Solaris 10 and 11.

And some people still use Atari STs to produce music. What's your
point?

His point is that he’s so pure that he uses 12-year-old OSes (almost
old
enough to be of interest to Roy Moore!) rather than pollute his
environment
with Mickeysoft or, worse, crApple, products,

Speaking of Roy Moore, do you have concrete evidence that the
allegations are true?

You mean other than the utterly obvious implication of him saying he
never dated a girl "without her mother's permission".

Hint for you: if you're dating adults, you don't need permission.

True, you don't need permission. But, it doesn't mean you can't ask. :-)

True... ...but really... ...come on...

...what are the odds?

Let's go to Vegas and find out!!!! G

Yea, the odds are long, but it's still possible. In some parts of the
country, those old fashioned customs are still honored.

Do I think he did it, or at least some of it? Yep. Will I tell you
he's guilty? Not a chance in H e double hockey sticks. Why?

Because I believe in one of the cornerstones of our justice system...
Innocent until proven guilty.

From listening to news reports, it would appear most people no longer
believe that.

There is no question as to whether or not Roy Moore is sexually attracted to
teenagers. He is. He has admitted it, numerous times, not least when he
stated that he was first attracted to his current wife when she was 15 or 16,
I forget which.

In case you haven't noticed, there is no magical switch that says before
a certain age you are _not_ attracted to someone, and after you reach
that age, you _will_ be attracted to someone.

That "age" is a cultural/societal/religious setting, *not* biological.

I graduated from high school in 1966. Unknown to me, there were at
least 2 married couples in my class. One already had a child.

My point? Attraction has nothing to do with an arbitrarily set age.

You want to talk about attraction, but what about the law? The law sets
an arbitrary age, unfortunately different in each state, but
nevertheless still law. I don't think it makes an exception for being
attracted. Even in a backwards place like Alabama, 15 years is
considered too young to give consent (by the girl) or permission (by the
parents).

The only question is whether or not he jumped the girls who
said he did.

Exactly. And at this point, that is still an open question. Unlike
others who have or quasi-have admitted sexual misconduct.
The man’s a kiddie fiddler. He has admitted it, several times.
The question is _which particular kiddies did he fiddle_, not whether or not
he’s a pervert. He says that he didn’t do _these particular girls_.
That’s not the point.

That is *exactly* the point. To date, every situation is a "he said,
she said" situation, which is _proof_ of nothing.

There is no court case, there is no court. Absent that, no one is bound
by the "innocent until proven guilty" concept and no one needs "proof".
We can each simply weigh the circumstances and what evidence we're aware
of and make a judgment. That's how most civilized societies work. This
isn't 'instead' of the judicial system, this is 'in addition to' the
judicial system. If Roy Moore ever gets dragged into court, the standard
of proof will be much higher than it is out here, and that's how it
should be.

As for Roy Moore, it's hard to know where to focus one's disgust. The
child molestation has been getting most of the air time, but remember
that this guy was removed from office for violating a court order,
claiming that god's law trumps man's law, or some such nonsense. How
does a person like that get even a single vote? I don't know the answer
to that. Or maybe I do.

The running joke about Alabama, which I first heard back in the late
70's or early 80's but people still tell it today, is that Alabama has
signs beside every highway as it crosses the border into the state which
read, "Welcome to Alabama. Please turn your clocks back 20 years." For a
stereotype to hang around for 40+ years, there might be a grain of truth
to it. I've spent enough time in Alabama, (and Mississippi), to know
that it's not somewhere I'd want to live. The deep South really is a
cesspool of bad ideas.

I spent the summer of 2014 working in Birmingham. The folks that I
worked with would tell you, with all seriousness, that the South didn't
lose the war. They're just biding their time, waiting for the right time
to rise up again. Also, this little gem - losing slavery was the worst
thing that ever happened in this country, and once the time is right for
rising up, that'll be the second thing to be restored. The first will be
to replace the Yank flag with the real flag. spit They even proudly
relate how they're teaching their kids all of this nonsense, all in the
name of "heritage". That's how such stupid ideas travel from one
generation to the next. It's both sickening and heartbreaking.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:46:05 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

If men become stupid enough to automatically believe everything a
woman says - especially when it comes to rape - then all women of the
world will have the ultimate weapon in their hands, capable of taking
down absolutely everyone without question. They _will_ use it too on
anyone they dislike, not anyone who actually committed a crime. I
thought I lived in a society wherein a man is innocent until proven
guilty but the media - and their audience - are quickly changing that.

Innocent until proven guilty applies in the courtroom. As a teacher, I
would have thought that you knew that, but perhaps you teach an
unrelated subject.

On 12/22/17, 2:22 PM, in article ,
"Char Jackson" wrote:

Let's go to Vegas and find out!!!! G

Yea, the odds are long, but it's still possible. In some parts of the
country, those old fashioned customs are still honored.

Do I think he did it, or at least some of it? Yep. Will I tell you
he's guilty? Not a chance in H e double hockey sticks. Why?

Because I believe in one of the cornerstones of our justice system...
Innocent until proven guilty.

From listening to news reports, it would appear most people no longer
believe that.

I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is one of the cornerstones
of our judicial system, but personal opinion isn't part of the judicial
system so as citizens we aren't bound by that concept. To most people
who aren't sitting on a jury, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a
duck, it's probably a duck.

The idea of innocent until guilty is tied to adjudication. It is absolutely
absurd to think nobody can deem someone ACTUALLY guilty of a crime before
they are adjudicated and found guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt). If this
was not the case then there could not be any court cases... the defendant
would just have to ask the prosecution if they thought the accused was
guilty. Since they have not been proved guilty, if you go with the
presumption of innocence there the prosecution would HAVE to say yes... they
presume the person they accuse of the crime is actually innocent. Once even
the prosecution is not arguing the accused is guilty the court case would be
tossed out.

Sadly a lot of people do not get this concept... and will confuse the
concept of someone being ACTUALLY guilty of breaking the law (or even
engaging in immoral acts) with the idea of having been found so through a
process of adjudication.

Then there are also people who will say if you acknowledge the logical
possibility of error in a determination of guilt this means they cannot be
deemed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt... which when you take things to the
level of the logical possibility of us being brains in a vat is just silly.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:00:30 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:46:05 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

If men become stupid enough to automatically believe everything a
woman says - especially when it comes to rape - then all women of the
world will have the ultimate weapon in their hands, capable of taking
down absolutely everyone without question. They _will_ use it too on
anyone they dislike, not anyone who actually committed a crime. I
thought I lived in a society wherein a man is innocent until proven
guilty but the media - and their audience - are quickly changing that.

Innocent until proven guilty applies in the courtroom. As a teacher, I
would have thought that you knew that, but perhaps you teach an
unrelated subject.

What about my post makes you believe that I don't?

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:14:07 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:00:30 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:46:05 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

If men become stupid enough to automatically believe everything a
woman says - especially when it comes to rape - then all women of the
world will have the ultimate weapon in their hands, capable of taking
down absolutely everyone without question. They _will_ use it too on
anyone they dislike, not anyone who actually committed a crime. I
thought I lived in a society wherein a man is innocent until proven
guilty but the media - and their audience - are quickly changing that.

Innocent until proven guilty applies in the courtroom. As a teacher, I
would have thought that you knew that, but perhaps you teach an
unrelated subject.

What about my post makes you believe that I don't?

All of it, but especially "I thought I lived in a society wherein a man
is innocent until proven guilty..."

If you didn't mean what you said, then I apologize.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:19:08 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:14:07 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 16:00:30 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:46:05 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

If men become stupid enough to automatically believe everything a
woman says - especially when it comes to rape - then all women of the
world will have the ultimate weapon in their hands, capable of taking
down absolutely everyone without question. They _will_ use it too on
anyone they dislike, not anyone who actually committed a crime. I
thought I lived in a society wherein a man is innocent until proven
guilty but the media - and their audience - are quickly changing that.

Innocent until proven guilty applies in the courtroom. As a teacher, I
would have thought that you knew that, but perhaps you teach an
unrelated subject.

What about my post makes you believe that I don't?

All of it, but especially "I thought I lived in a society wherein a man
is innocent until proven guilty..."

If you didn't mean what you said, then I apologize.

I would figure that if a person is innocent until proven guilty in
court, that sort of treatment should extend to general society as
well. I don't want there to be a difference between how a person is
legally and socially judged.

I'm very much against the idea of a person's opinion on anything being
formed by peer pressure.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:42:44 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-21 20:18, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:51:05 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-21 18:25, Doomsdrzej wrote:
[...]

Speaking of Roy Moore, do you have concrete evidence that the
allegations are true?

You mean, apart from what the victims said?

You mean what the _alleged_ victims said and supported with unverified
evidence.

Well, there's usually only allegations when it come to sex crimes. Sex
criminals generally don't perform in public.

Your stance is that of Sharia law, under which a woman's complaint of
rape is dismissed unless there are two (or maybe it's three) male
witnesses to corroborate her story.

When did I mention anything about male witnesses? The reason I
consider these rape allegations to be just that, _allegations_, is
because I've learned how vicious women are and how willing they are to
completely destroy a man with a lie over something miniscule. If these
women want to be taken seriously, I would suggest that they make an
accusation _and_ prove it in court. Otherwise, it's hearsay and no, I
don't believe that male witnesses are necessary for her to be taken
seriously; conclusive evidence will be fine as well as a clear
definition of what constitutes sexual assault. There is a difference
between a man being a jerk and a man being a predator.

Be kinda hard to get, since kiddie-diddlers take great care not to be
observed.

So you believe that people are guilty until proven innocent.

Well, that's how it is in the court of public opinion, of which you
count yourself a member. It's how you judged "crooked Hillary", after
all. Despite the fact that the FBI found no grounds for bringing a
charge against her.

It is currently in the news that Comey and Strzok had both essentially
dismissed all charges against her before even interviewing her. In
other words, the FBI intentionally neglected to do their job to
protect her. As such, I don't believe that she is innocent because the
organization tasked with getting her to be judged was corrupt from the
beginning. If you didn't rely exclusively on news agencies which think
that Hillary Clinton is the bee's knees, you'd be aware of this.

In any case, only in criminal court are people "innocent until proven
guilty". An acquittal doesn't mean innocence, it merely means "not
proven guilty." It does not mean the perp didn't do it. As you well
know, if you have any knowledge at all of how our justice system works.
It's biased against convicting an innocent person, which means the odds
are that some of the guilty will go free. For an example of the
converse, a bias against letting a guilty person go free, see the law as
administered under any totalitarian regime. There, guilty until proven
innocent is the way it's done in court as well as in public opinion.

BTW, in Scottish law, there's a verdict of "not proven", which means
that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but not enough to acquit.

Very interesting but you're going off on a tangent. On the one hand,
you're arguing that Moore is certainly guilty and then defending
yourself by mentioning that there is a possibility of him not being
_proven_ guilty. Either way, you're saying that he's guilty despite
the fact that there is still no real evidence against him other than
mere hearsay. Let's not ignore that Gloria Allred is rejecting all
requests to have Moore's yearbook signature to be scientifically
examined until a case against him is officially opened. To me, THAT is
evidence that he _didn't_ do it.

I don't want to live in the same world as you, Comrade.

Then take the time to examine all the available evidence, and don't rely
on the spin doctors that you cite as reliable sources.

*YOU* are the one who is using sources which omit to even mention
certain current events for fear that they might negatively impact
public opinion of some liberal. It's funny how the multiple sources
you use are essentially owned by the same people and push the same
narrative. Should be expect different perspectives from the hundreds
of news organizations which are all owned by six different companies?

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:45:03 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-22 03:51, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/21/17 9:38 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 8:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/21/17 5:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 3:25 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:13:31 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 2017 Dec 21, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:45:50 +1100, Lucifer

wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:44:11 -0500, Doomsdrzej * wrote:

On 20 Dec 2017 17:17:34 GMT, ray * wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:36:59 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...tu-17.10-BIOS-


Corrupter

Linux corrupts your BIOS. Brilliant stuff.

One example of why I use Debian instead of Ubuntu.

Probably a good point, but I hope you'll understand why some
people
might be reluctant to use Linux in general as a result of news
like
this.

I have machines running Solaris 10 and 11.

And some people still use Atari STs to produce music. What's your
point?

His point is that he’s so pure that he uses 12-year-old OSes (almost
old
enough to be of interest to Roy Moore!) rather than pollute his
environment
with Mickeysoft or, worse, crApple, products,

Speaking of Roy Moore, do you have concrete evidence that the
allegations are true?


You mean other than the utterly obvious implication of him saying he
never dated a girl "without her mother's permission".

Hint for you: if you're dating adults, you don't need permission.

True, you don't need permission.* But, it doesn't mean you can't
ask.* :-)



True... ...but really... ...come on...

...what are the odds?

Let's go to Vegas and find out!!!!** G

Yea, the odds are long, but it's still possible.* In some parts of the
country, those old fashioned customs are still honored.

Do I think he did it, or at least some of it?* Yep.* Will I tell you
he's guilty?* Not a chance in H e double hockey sticks.* Why?

Because I believe in one of the cornerstones of our justice system...
Innocent until proven guilty.

From listening to news reports, it would appear most people no longer
believe that.



IOW, there's insufficient evidence to convict. But that doens't mean he
didn't do it. All of it.

Which is an idiotic stance for any person to take and I'm not shocked
than an idiot took it.

What you're saying is that "even if they can't prove that he's a
pedophile, he's still a pedophile."

On 2017 Dec 22, Ken Springer wrote
(in article ):

On 12/22/17 4:57 AM, Wolffan wrote:
On 2017 Dec 22, Ken Springer wrote
(in article ):

On 12/21/17 9:38 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 8:29 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 12/21/17 5:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2017-12-21 3:25 PM, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 13:13:31 -0500,
wrote:

On 2017 Dec 21, Doomsdrzej wrote
(in ):

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:45:50 +1100, Lucifer
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:44:11 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

On 20 Dec 2017 17:17:34 GMT, ray wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:36:59 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...x=Ubuntu-17.10
-B
IOS-
Corrupter

Linux corrupts your BIOS. Brilliant stuff.

One example of why I use Debian instead of Ubuntu.

Probably a good point, but I hope you'll understand why some people
might be reluctant to use Linux in general as a result of news like
this.

I have machines running Solaris 10 and 11.

And some people still use Atari STs to produce music. What's your
point?

His point is that he’s so pure that he uses 12-year-old OSes (almost
old
enough to be of interest to Roy Moore!) rather than pollute his
environment
with Mickeysoft or, worse, crApple, products,

Speaking of Roy Moore, do you have concrete evidence that the
allegations are true?

You mean other than the utterly obvious implication of him saying he
never dated a girl "without her mother's permission".

Hint for you: if you're dating adults, you don't need permission.

True, you don't need permission. But, it doesn't mean you can't ask. :-)

True... ...but really... ...come on...

...what are the odds?

Let's go to Vegas and find out!!!! G

Yea, the odds are long, but it's still possible. In some parts of the
country, those old fashioned customs are still honored.

Do I think he did it, or at least some of it? Yep. Will I tell you
he's guilty? Not a chance in H e double hockey sticks. Why?

Because I believe in one of the cornerstones of our justice system...
Innocent until proven guilty.

From listening to news reports, it would appear most people no longer
believe that.

There is no question as to whether or not Roy Moore is sexually attracted to
teenagers. He is. He has admitted it, numerous times, not least when he
stated that he was first attracted to his current wife when she was 15 or
16,
I forget which.

In case you haven't noticed, there is no magical switch that says before
a certain age you are _not_ attracted to someone, and after you reach
that age, you _will_ be attracted to someone.

That "age" is a cultural/societal/religious setting, *not* biological.

I graduated from high school in 1966. Unknown to me, there were at
least 2 married couples in my class. One already had a child.

My point? Attraction has nothing to do with an arbitrarily set age.

The only question is whether or not he jumped the girls who
said he did.

Exactly. And at this point, that is still an open question. Unlike
others who have or quasi-have admitted sexual misconduct.
The man’s a kiddie fiddler. He has admitted it, several times.
The question is _which particular kiddies did he fiddle_, not whether or not
he’s a pervert. He says that he didn’t do _these particular girls_.
That’s not the point.

That is *exactly* the point. To date, every situation is a "he said,
she said" situation, which is _proof_ of nothing.

And that is why I find it disgusting when some try to
steer the discussion away to ‘innocent until proven guilty’, when they
know damn well that he will _never_ be proven guilty if only because the
statute of limitations on being a kiddie fiddler _for those particular
girls_
expired a long time ago.

Before going out on such an unsupportable limb, let me ask you a
question. What if you were accused of some crime for which you were not
guilty, and were on trial. Would you want any member of the jury to be
sitting here voting for guilty just because they *thought* or *believed*
you were guilty?

The man was a prosecutor; it was his duty to hunt down and punish kiddie
fiddlers. The man was a judge. It was his duty to drop the hammer on kiddie
fiddlers. Instead, he was, and is, one. He is a disgusting waste of skin.

*If* true, you are correct. He should have known better. But for
years, powerful men in our society have thought they were above the law,
and perpetrated many illegal acts.

And, there are many cases where men (and I'm sure women) who have spent
years in jail for things they did *not* do because different reasons.

It can happen both ways.

Have you heard of Graham J. Zellick? He was legal professor in England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_J._Zellick He made a famous
statement that goes "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than
one innocent man is wrongfully convicted ... We know from bitter
experience that juries get things wrong. The Court of Appeal ought to be
more active in quashing convictions even though there has not been any
irregularity in the trial process."

Do you believe all efforts should be made to ensure no innocent person
should go to jail?

not the point. he is a SELF-ADMITTED kiddie fiddler. His mouth. Not anyone
else’s.

Paul wrote:

I *think* I'm covered, because my computer has
a special USB port, with a flasher function built
right in. You plug in a USB stick with a named BIOS
file on it, push a button, and the image is loaded
into the BIOS (there is a separate chip on the
motherboard handling this). The function works so
well, that even if the CPU is not in the CPU socket
and it's "just a motherboard", the flashing function
still works. You can buy my motherboard, connect an
ATX power supply, plug in a USB stick, flash the BIOS,
power off... and insert a previously-unsupported CPU
and have it work.

I haven't needed to use that, but that's my "insurance
policy" in times of trouble.

You have spent some time bashing Gigabyte's DualBIOS, suggesting
your method is better. Any citations for either of those
assertions?

Do you have any citations about Gigabyte's DualBIOS not working?

Do you have any citations to support your method?

Thanks.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:50:05 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-22 20:29, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:42:44 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-21 20:18, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:51:05 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-21 18:25, Doomsdrzej wrote:
[...]

Speaking of Roy Moore, do you have concrete evidence that the
allegations are true?

You mean, apart from what the victims said?

You mean what the _alleged_ victims said and supported with unverified
evidence.

Well, there's usually only allegations when it come to sex crimes. Sex
criminals generally don't perform in public.

Your stance is that of Sharia law, under which a woman's complaint of
rape is dismissed unless there are two (or maybe it's three) male
witnesses to corroborate her story.

When did I mention anything about male witnesses?

You didn't. But you expect corroboration. From whom/where would it come?

As far as I know, when a person is raped (and she _immediately_ alerts
the police rather than wait three decades), they can examine her body
and see if any kind of force was used so as to determine whether it
was consensual or not. In addition to that, they can gather the DNA of
the supposed criminal to confirm whether he was wasn't anywhere near
the alleged victim. Only without that would you need witnesses so, as
far as I'm concerned, the very fact that these women took as long as
they did to speak out also makes it impossible to determine whether
they're telling the truth with any evidence other than a lie detector
which is itself unreliable. However, notice that I make _no_ mention
of witnesses. I imagine that a rapist wouldn't be stupid enough to do
any of that in front of potential witnesses.

The reason I
consider these rape allegations to be just that, _allegations_, is
because I've learned how vicious women are and how willing they are to
completely destroy a man with a lie over something miniscule.

Oh dear, you're revealing some sad history about yourself.

Sure, and I'm very happy to talk about it. A female teacher, upset
that I rejected her in 2009, decided that she would take revenge on me
in 2017 as a result of the fact that I mostly ignored her. Being good
friends with two other women, they demonized me and had most of the
administration and human resources fooled. In the end, it was
determined that I did nothing at all and that, in reality, *I* was the
victim of sexual harrassment from one of her two allies. You know
there's a problem when _their_ lawyer, point blank, asks me whether I
had slept with the initial woman and never bothered to call her back
because she was needlessly vicious. Of course, that is what women are
like and since they can allege anything they want - with the
assistance of beta males such as yourself - they know that there are
little to no consequences to their actions.

I'll just say Ip;ve never had that kind of problem with women. Ever.

Because they detect that there is nothing masculine about you and tend
to stay away out of a complete lack of attraction. In my case, as a
result of a decent physique and handsome features, I have to fight
some of them off out of respect for my beautiful wife.

If these
women want to be taken seriously, I would suggest that they make an
accusation _and_ prove it in court. Otherwise, it's hearsay and no, I
don't believe that male witnesses are necessary for her to be taken
seriously; conclusive evidence will be fine as well as a clear
definition of what constitutes sexual assault. There is a difference
between a man being a jerk and a man being a predator.

Be kinda hard to get, since kiddie-diddlers take great care not to be
observed.

So you believe that people are guilty until proven innocent.

Well, that's how it is in the court of public opinion, of which you
count yourself a member. It's how you judged "crooked Hillary", after
all. Despite the fact that the FBI found no grounds for bringing a
charge against her.

It is currently in the news that Comey and Strzok had both essentially
dismissed all charges against her before even interviewing her.

It's not their job to interview her. It's their job (or rather, the FBI
agents' job) to gather evidence. Comey's job was to evaluate the
evidence, and determine whether or not to go to the next stage,
presenting the case to a grand jury, in order to have that body
determine whether there was enough evidence to warrant a trial. (That's
how it works in the USA). Remember that the FBI is a police force, not a
court. Their conclusion was that while there was irregular use of a
private server for emails, the evidence didn't justify a crimninal charge.

Idiot. If you read any news other than your subjective liberal
sources, you'd know that the FBI _never_ bothered to gather _any_
evidence against Hillary and that they had come up with their
conclusion and decision to clear her of wrongdoing before even
interviewing her. THAT is my point but you're wholly unaware of it
because you can't be bothered to read/watch any news other than that
which already agrees with your assessment.

In
other words, the FBI intentionally neglected to do their job to
protect her. As such, I don't believe that she is innocent because the
organization tasked with getting her to be judged was corrupt from the
beginning. If you didn't rely exclusively on news agencies which think
that Hillary Clinton is the bee's knees, you'd be aware of this.

I'm aware that the alt-right media go bug-eyed and frothy at the mouth
whenever they think of Hillary. She wasn't the best presidential
candidate ever, but she was a competent legislator. A smart, powerful
woman.

Yet she accomplished _nothing_. It's very to call her competent now
isn't it? Even the liberal sources who are ready to praise her ability
to wipe her ass correctly have difficulty compiling a list of anything
she might have done. At best, she seems to have high-fived the people
within a team she was a participant in. In other words, she got a
participant trophy and the liberal world felt that handing her the
ultimate power on Earth was warranted.

In any case, only in criminal court are people "innocent until proven
guilty". An acquittal doesn't mean innocence, it merely means "not
proven guilty." It does not mean the perp didn't do it. As you well
know, if you have any knowledge at all of how our justice system works.
It's biased against convicting an innocent person, which means the odds
are that some of the guilty will go free. For an example of the
converse, a bias against letting a guilty person go free, see the law as
administered under any totalitarian regime. There, guilty until proven
innocent is the way it's done in court as well as in public opinion.

BTW, in Scottish law, there's a verdict of "not proven", which means
that there was insufficient evidence to convict, but not enough to acquit.

Very interesting but you're going off on a tangent. On the one hand,
you're arguing that Moore is certainly guilty and then defending
yourself by mentioning that there is a possibility of him not being
_proven_ guilty. Either way, you're saying that he's guilty despite
the fact that there is still no real evidence against him other than
mere hearsay. Let's not ignore that Gloria Allred is rejecting all
requests to have Moore's yearbook signature to be scientifically
examined until a case against him is officially opened. To me, THAT is
evidence that he _didn't_ do it.

You're confusing two kinds of guilt. Criminal guilt is difficult to
prove, (and rightly so, since it carries serious consequences). Moral
guilt is something else. Moore is morally guilty, on his own admission.
even if his actions were did not meet the criteria for criminal guilt.

"On his own admission." My ass.

By all means, provide a quote in which he admits to being "morally
guilty." Make sure that it doesn't need a beta male's subjective
interpretation because I am wholly unable to shrink my own balls to
live life as you do.

I don't want to live in the same world as you, Comrade.

Then take the time to examine all the available evidence, and don't rely
on the spin doctors that you cite as reliable sources.

*YOU* are the one who is using sources which omit to even mention
certain current events for fear that they might negatively impact
public opinion of some liberal.

I'll repeat what I told you earlier: A Facebook friend used to post a
lot of alt-right stuff which claimed they had news of "certain current
events that the Mainstream Media didn't dare to report." I checked the
mainstream media. Every one of the alleged "They'll never report this"
incident had been reported by the MSM at least one day before the date
of the alt-right post. Every one. Inference: those alt-right bloggers
read the mainstream media, posted the news, and then relied on their
followers never to check for themselves.

By all means, provide concrete examples rather than your worthless
subjective "experience."

It's funny how the multiple sources
you use are essentially owned by the same people and push the same
narrative. Should be expect different perspectives from the hundreds
of news organizations which are all owned by six different companies?

It's funny that you don't seem to know about the Koch brothers. Or
Rupert Murdoch.

Fox News _is_ mainstream media.

Clearly, it is and it is also not my exclusive source. However, it
also goes against the grain and provides a different, conservative
view of the news. For that reason alone, I can tolerate them.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:03:28 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-22 20:30, Doomsdrzej wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 19:45:03 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-12-22 03:51, Ken Springer wrote:
[...]
Do I think he did it, or at least some of it?* Yep.* Will I tell you
he's guilty?* Not a chance in H e double hockey sticks.* Why?

Because I believe in one of the cornerstones of our justice system...
Innocent until proven guilty.

From listening to news reports, it would appear most people no longer
believe that.



IOW, there's insufficient evidence to convict. But that doesn't mean he
didn't do it. All of it.

Which is an idiotic stance for any person to take and I'm not shocked
than an idiot took it.

Once again, you're confusing criminal guilt and moral guilt. The fact
that there's insufficient evidence to prove a criminal charge does _not_
mean that the accused didn't do it. It just means that there wasn't a
strong enough case to convict. Or even that the actions weren't criminal.

If the actions weren't criminal, why the Hell would anyone care?
Considering how you liberals add new things into the "immoral" pile on
a daily basis, forgive me if I don't give a **** about "moral guilt."
Your camp is the same one arguing that there is such a thing as racist
trees, that snow is racist and that the mere existence of white men is
racist.

Fact is, you're using the same logic you accuse me of against Hillary:
just because the FBI didn't bring a charge doesn't mean she's not
guilty, that's your argument. Why do you object when the same argument
is brought against one of your heroes?

The FBI didn't bring a charge against Hillary because they didn't
actually investigate anything, not because of some idiotic concept
such as "moral guilt." It is now very well known (by real news
agencies) that the FBI through Strzok and Comey intentionally gave her
a pass *despite* the overwhelming evidence.

What you're saying is that "even if they can't prove that he's a
pedophile, he's still a pedophile."

I don't have to prove that one, he admitted it. It was his defence that
he had asked permission from the girl's mother. I don't think that's a
defence, neither in law, nor in public opinion. Keep in mind that sex
with an underage person is rape in law, even if it was consensual.

Where is your evidence that he had any kind of sexual relations with
an underage girl? You have none so be quiet and do not interpret
objective criminal law in your very subjective, idiotic way.