🚀 go-pugleaf

wrightd@magic.mb.ca (David C. Wright) wrote:

>You yourself state above that he sells a pamphlet that contains information
>on how to use a plastic bag.  So the question is, what constitutes
>information?  If I mention that grenades exist, have I provided information
>about explosives?  In one sense, I have, since I have let it be known that
>they exist.  On the other hand, I have not, because I have not provided the
>means to create a grenade.  The notion that a plastic bag can be used to
>suffocate is surely not a revelatory coup in terms of dying, any more than
>the notion that a grenade explodes is a relevatory coup.  Everybody knows
>about these things.  So, if merely noting or referring to something
>constitutes 'information', then Hoffsess is surely a horrible criminal.  On
>the other hand, so am I, and so are you, because we have both noted that a
>plastic bag can be used to augment suicide, and we are as guilty as he is.

You once again ignore my original point, and that is that Mr. Hofsess
is saying that nowhere on his web site does he mention anything about
plastic bags, and, as I have pointed out to you and everyone else,
this is not true.  He not only mentions them, he sells a brochure on
how to use a plastic bag to kill yourself.  I believe you took issue
with me on this very issue. 

>If you are prepared to abstract information to that level, then you are
>grasping at straws.  At that level of abstraction, I would be a murderer,
>because I have presented the means by which it could be done.  Never mind
>that I've never actually *hurt* anybody. If second-level indirection is
>enough for an endictment, then I'm guilty of all manner of things that I've
>never done, simply because I've considered them, or discussed how it could
>be done.  Hell, I've robbed the Royal Canadian Mint, because I've discussed
>the means.  Never mind that I've not actually taken anything.

Again, you are wrong.  Mr. Hofsess stated he did not provide material
on plastic bags, he does and you are wrong.  No matter how you try to
argue it away, the facts remain.

"There has never been any information about plastic bags on DeathNET".
(John Hofsess)

That is the original quote.  I have proven otherwise.

>Oh, and, by the way, I recognise that you cannot lead off any article
>without taking a personal shot at the author, but I really don't hold that
>against you.  I would not for a minute consider that practice as labelling
>you as a lame-brained moron.

What's wrong, David, bad hair day?  Or is it difficult to accept that
you have lost a debate?
  
As John himself stated:

"There has never been any information about plastic bags on DeathNET".
(John Hofsess)