I am very fond of you, Whig. You know that...I think. This that I am saying is "criticism"...and I brace myself to get some back...but I'm doing it anyway, since you are too far away to backhand me.

You are quick, and you are sharp, but you are also, often, quite shrill.

In my experience, I think you should make every effort to fight that. It's not good...unless you are a "watch whistle"...which actually would be a good metaphor for some of you comments...and that can be very good. Warners and watch whistlers are needed and necessary to life. But not always, all the time. Then it becomes just an unnecessary shrillness. A sword too often used.

Knowing what I do about you and what I know about Zuckerman...I would not at all be surprised that your family or someone you know has indeed experienced being on the receiving end of the sort of threats that Zuckerman admits to making.

I think you are very correct in making it clear that C-Newsers...even the ones that don't speak, are not agreeing with Richard about nearly everything, perhaps, he posts...not everything, but a lot. I have to admit, I am often overwhelmed by some of Richard's posts and don't really get much he is saying.

He's been punished for his threat...he's being watched, betcha while he's in a constant state of legal appeal, which I think he should end, and I'm sure watched closely.

Apparently the watchers are able think it's relatively safe for him to be out. It might not be. Threats often, usually, lead to acts. It scares me.

Richard could have tracked us all down and be ready to kill us all in our sleep...one by one...or something. (Rigors. Rigors.)

Or he could be a narc and trying to decieve someone into saying something really stupid.

Come to think...he has gotten away with that for a long time. He's probably a government agent.

But I will keep that in mind without having to panic.

That doesn't mean that obvious wrong thinking...thinking that most likely will lead to some sort of, at least, earthly, tragedy, should be ignored.

It is not being ignored.

Ostrazization (I don't want to look it up, please)is a part of life, but it should be weilded with mercy. Ostracize away, but when he understands a less violent...words easily carry violence...way of thinking. He will be better off. I hope he can make it to that point...and with deep conviction. It can happen.

That is, if he's really who he purports to be and really believes he's doing the "right thing".

We all know he was wrong. He's been told he was wrong. You have and are doing that very well. It is appropriate for you to do that. Do NOT do anything inappropriate.

If I say nothing to Zuckerman, nobody else says anything. I've seen it repeatedly. Nobody says anything, so it stands. And anyone reading here might think we agree with him.

Richard, you need to learn that rage, a feeling of being wronged, and rage can sometimes gain such strength, if you allow it to, and carry you places you should not have gone...like the recent tragedy in Virginia.

Self pity isn't always a mewling pitiful thing. Sometimes it's an out of control monster.

Over the years Richard's been a regular presence here. We don't all think alike. Richard in fact, makes me dizzy nearly with some of his comments. Zuckerman has never struck me as a calm person. Never. Apparently he doesn't completely burn himself out at this rate. He is who he is...and he does listen when we differ with him. He has a reasoning mind...most of the time. :0)

We will criticize each other and we will argue with each other occasionaly. We all have friends of all different sorts and ways of thinking. We don't only befriend those who think exactly like us. Richard is different. I, unlike, Richard, have no fear of being taken over by Mexicans. I grew up in South Texas. We were already taken over. There was nothing strange or ominous about it. :0)

His writing makes him sound frantic and too tightly wound. He seems alarmed a great deal of the time. But he has not been overbearing. He listens when you disagree with him. At least that's what I've noticed happening over the years.

He does not have what I think of as bad manners and I'm glad he doesn't hide what he really thinks.

Change his mind, Whig on things you disagree with him about. Guide him out of what you think is wrong thinking and he doesn't....because he's someone you talk to regularly. He's in your life. Don't give up on him so easily.

Hey anyone seen this story of stupidity?

NEAR ISSAQUAH, Wash. - A Washington state trooper pulled over a driver who swerved as he blew his nose and discovered 20 pounds of marijuana in his car, Trooper Jeff Merrill said. ... rest at http://www.katu.com/news/local/7127211.html

We are just saying we don't want to associate ourselves with you. At least, that's what Max Flowers, and BGreen, and I are all saying, I cannot speak for others. Are we not entitled to freedom of association?

Now this is not our place, it is FoM's, and she hasn't done anything at all to block you in any way, and yet you say she is persecuting you too? I don't understand how she possibly could be doing so, by merely providing this forum which you have used at her own tolerance. How about expressing a little appreciation?

So it's not up to me what happens, but you do have the ability at any time to fix what you've done wrong. But you have to take personal responsibility -- right here and right now, not something that you "did your time" for.

You could have said it was a stupid thing to threaten a Judge, IN WRITING no less, but you chose to give the excuse that the federal whatever expired in 1995. SO WHAT?

It was a STUPID thing to do, Richard, and you show no remorse. NONE. You just write your hateful words and disparage anybody that doesn't want to join you in your hatred.

You can go anywhere and spew your hatred. It just isn't welcome by most of us here.

Your "violence begets violence" sounds like a threat to me, Rev.! And what makes you believe I'm angry?

Your anger doesn't seem to represent someone who has changed or is sorry for such an outrageous death threat.

Violence begets violence, and no matter how much you try to put us down, we just aren't going to play that game.

Besides, [1] they took me thru trial in the same federal courthouse where the mail "threat" was received and the prosecution witness testified they had to be escorted to their car at the end of that business day; Back around 1995, the 10th Circuit rendered a published decision which changes the venue of the Oklahoma City bombing prosecution because one of the law clerks was slightly injured in the blast, entitled either In re Wayne Alley or In re Nichols or U.S. v. Nichols; [2] the trial judge refused to instruct the jury that "exaggeration" is a defense to a mail threat prosecution [the standard 5th Circuit jury instruction for a mail threat prosecution]. Instead, the trial judge instructed the jury as per the prosecutor's request, that it must be more than "rhetoric or idle talk"; [3] there was an abuse of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a); (4) the trial judge denied my motion to dismiss based on bad faith prosecution, stating the individual citizen does not have a right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution; (5) I had a federal Speedy Trial Act claim; (6) 3rd Circuit Judge Sloviter cancelled the scheduled appellate oral argument and issued a "judgment order" in response to my respectful request to argue the appeal in pro se. If you consider these points to be frivolous and that an accused deserves to be convicted without regard to constitutional rights of the hated accused, then let it happen to all of you!!!! At least I learned from this act of bad judgment! At least I did not really hurt anybody! Nobody was physically attacked, nor was there any intention of it. Nobody was robbed. Nobody was stolen from. You ought to read the dissenting opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Douglas in Watts v. United States, that in his opinion the statute making it a serious crime to threaten the U.S. President is unconstitutional as a remnant of the Alien & Sedition Act!! You ought to read what U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo L. Black said about his support for absolute freedom of speech, instead of you hissy fit overly sensitive folks who get physically confrontational about the "n*****" word while you call each other that word and often kill folks of your same skin color!!! As a matter of fact, I do not consider the Black Rutgers University basketball team as victims in any way, shape, or form, and I certainly do not believe Imus should have been fired for the one passing remark. I vehemently oppose forced integration of public schools as required by Brown v. Board of Education, FoM, too!!! All you people see is either a "rap sheet" with convictions or a brief comment from someone honest enough to mention it. You don't know how the conviction came about, what the government & judiciary had to do to keep that conviction intact. I have my freedom of speech just as much as you have freedom of speech to refer to me as "polluting" this web site with certain comments YOU deem untrue. You have one "threat", which I signed, dated, and return addressed, which was back in 1988, 19 years ago, and nobody was injured. The conviction was in 1991. Federal supervised release terminated in 1995. It has been not 10 years, but eleven and a half years since the expiration of the sentence, the only felony conviction on my record! And, yes, the conviction was from the "Marijuana" laws. And the right to keep and bear arms. If I had any money, I would have had the decency to retain an attorney to appeal the case, but I was indigent. I'd like you to visit the library, find the Federal Reporter, 2nd series, look on the side of books, look for the In Memmorium of

In Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 774 (2003), The Court wrote:

"Convictions based on evidence obtained by methods that are 'so brutal and so offensive to human dignity' that they 'shock the consceince' violate the Due Process Clause. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172, 174 (1952)...Although Rochin did not establish a civil remedy for abusive police behavior, we recognized in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846 (1998), that deprivations of liberty caused by 'the most egregious official conduct," id., at 846, 847-848, may violate the Due Process Clause. While we rejected, in Lewis, a federal civil rights plaintiff's contention that a police officer's deliberate indifference during a high-speed chase that caused the death of a motorcyclist violated due process, id., at 854, we left open the possibility that unauthorized police behavior in other contexts might 'shock the conscience' and give rise to federal civil rights liability. Id., at 850."

Quoting the above paragraph, the trial court, in Hirmuz v. City Of Madison Heights, 469 F.Supp.2d 466, 480-483 (E.D. Mich., Judge Lawson, January 3, 2007) held that "[d]eliberately fabricating evidence against an accused person falls into this category...A claim of fabrication of evidence does not require a conclusion that the state did not have probable cause to prosecute the claimant..."

YOU PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS AS YET ANOTHER FACET OF YOUR ARSENAL AGAINST LIAR POLICE OFFICERS!!!!!

***

From our ANI Correspondent

Washington, April 21: Rock star Neil Young's fans will get to listen to the magic of his enchanting music in his wife Pegi's debut album also.

He has given music to a host of songs in the album, and an electric sitar solo on 'Love Like Water'.

Pegi revealed that at first the whole band avoided discussing whether her husband should play for the album or not, but later on the studio crew roped him in.

"Leading up to it, I put the band together and we just sort of avoided discussing whether Neil was going to play on it or not," Contactmusic quoted her as telling Billboard.com.

"He dropped by the first day and kind of listened, and the next day, the guys at the studio had wisely created a little space for him, should he want to participate at all. And then he just ended up playing on everything, all the way through," she added.

Copyright Dailyindia.com/ANI