🚀 go-pugleaf

egerk@awinc.com (Edward Gerk) writes:
> Victoria, B.C. Police are investigating John Hofsess and the Right to
> Die Society of Canada for possible violations of the Canadian Criminal
> Code.

8<

> New readers may not be aware that the man at the center of this new
> controversy, John Hofsess, was taken to task for forging the signature
> of Sue Rodriguez, a Canadian right to die activist (who had ALS), on a
> letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun.  Sue then cut all ties to
> Mr. Hofsess because of the forgery. This all took place early in 1993.

Was he not also point man for that Windsor fellow that took his life?

-- 
"Yeah. I was just sitting here drinking my coffee, eating my
muffin, playin' the incident in my head, when I had what 
alcoholics refer to as a "moment of clarity."

Visit the Conspiracy Arc-Hive
http://www.eye.net/Howling/Conspiracy/Hive/Arc-Hive/

On DeathNET, Mr. Hofsess is now going after the media and stating that
no where on his web site does he mention plastic bags.  In fact he
states:

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

Mr. Hofsess seems to have some difficulty grasping the truth.  On
another page posted on the  DeathNET web site, called "The Art and
Science of Suicide", the same Mr. Hofsess writes:

	Once you have a basic grasp of "how-to" techniques, and have
	formed a view as to which method(s) you wish to explore in
	greater depth, The Art and Science of Suicide Series offers the
	latest information in specific areas: carbon monoxide, the use
	of plastic bags, tricyclic antidepressants, and so on. 

      	 The Art and Science of Suicide series emphasizes
      	 methods that work. Each chapter is based on actual case
       	histories and ongoing research. The chapters are revised
      	whenever necessary and made available immediately to
      	readers. 
		
   	  With The Art and Science of Suicide series, you need only
    	 purchase the chapters which interest you - rather than pay
for
	extraneous material. 

	The Art and Science of Suicide chapters are not written by
	"armchair academics" -- but by activists around the world
	working directly with seriously ill people who wish to die
	peacefully and quickly. You, the reader, get the benefit of a
	growing body of experience when you buy chapters of this
	series. 

	Until such time as laws are changed in countries around the
	world, to permit greater choice in dying - we are committed to
	helping people achieve the best death possible under difficult
	circumstances. Help us - to help you--and others 


	http://www.rights.org/~deathnet/ASintro.html

So, if we read this correctly, John Hofsess and his latest rantings
are a lie.  He does mention plastic bags on his web site.  In fact,
you can order a pamphlet on the use of a plastic bag.

In short, it would appear that the head of the Right to Die Society of
Canada cannot grasp what is truth and what is fiction.  He slams
everyone who disagrees with him, accusing them of falsehoods, when he
himself has difficulty telling the truth.

Ted Gerk

>   	
> 
> So, if we read this correctly, John Hofsess and his latest rantings
> are a lie.  He does mention plastic bags on his web site.  In fact,
> you can order a pamphlet on the use of a plastic bag.
> 
> In short, it would appear that the head of the Right to Die Society of
> Canada cannot grasp what is truth and what is fiction.  He slams
> everyone who disagrees with him, accusing them of falsehoods, when he
> himself has difficulty telling the truth.
> 
> Ted Gerk
>

This Hofsess guy is a scary, sick, dangerous son-of-a-bitch. The sooner
he's put in jail the better.

Mark N. 

Mark Newlove wrote:
> 
> [Ted Gerk wrote:]
> >
> > So, if we read this correctly, John Hofsess and his latest rantings
> > are a lie.  He does mention plastic bags on his web site.  In fact,
> > you can order a pamphlet on the use of a plastic bag.
> >
> > In short, it would appear that the head of the Right to Die Society of
> > Canada cannot grasp what is truth and what is fiction.  He slams
> > everyone who disagrees with him, accusing them of falsehoods, when he
> > himself has difficulty telling the truth.

> 
> This Hofsess guy is a scary, sick, dangerous son-of-a-bitch. The sooner
> he's put in jail the better.


Let's see. According to Ted, Hofsess said there was no information 
about plastic bags on the RTD web site; but in fact there is 
information there about how one can buy a pamphlet about them. That 
is, one can't find the information there, but one can find out how to 
obtain that information. So there is *some* information there about 
plastic bags, sort of.

Oooh, sounds real sick and scary to me. That must be the most 
egregious case of dishonesty I've ever heard of. Prison is too good 
for someone like that. 

<g>


                            Jeremy Anderson
                            jpanders@uci.edu

...

>> So, if we read this correctly, John Hofsess and his latest rantings
>> are a lie.  He does mention plastic bags on his web site.  In fact,
>> you can order a pamphlet on the use of a plastic bag.
>> 
>> In short, it would appear that the head of the Right to Die Society of
>> Canada cannot grasp what is truth and what is fiction.  He slams
>> everyone who disagrees with him, accusing them of falsehoods, when he
>> himself has difficulty telling the truth.
>> 
>> Ted Gerk

Yes, this coming from Ted Gerk, one well known for explicit and unabridged
honesty in the euthanasia debate. (**NOT**)  Get your fucking ducks in a
row, Ted.  Then sneeze and blow them to hell.  I saw the same newspaper
articles that you saw.  They said that Hofsess *sold* those plastic bags,
and he plainly does nothing of the sort.  So where is the lie in that?
Answer:  The lie does not exist.  Hofsess has represented himself
correctly, but *you* are choosing to represent that truth in an egregiously
false manner.  You can back-pedal all you like, but the simple fact is that
you are a liar.

-- 
                  David C. Wright (wrightd@magic.mb.ca)
                    http://www.magic.mb.ca/~wrightd

             Assasination is censorship in the extreme.

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

>Yes, this coming from Ted Gerk, one well known for explicit and unabridged
>honesty in the euthanasia debate. (**NOT**)  Get your fucking ducks in a
>row, Ted.  Then sneeze and blow them to hell.  I saw the same newspaper
>articles that you saw.  They said that Hofsess *sold* those plastic bags,
>and he plainly does nothing of the sort.  So where is the lie in that?
>Answer:  The lie does not exist.  Hofsess has represented himself
>correctly, but *you* are choosing to represent that truth in an egregiously
>false manner.  You can back-pedal all you like, but the simple fact is that
>you are a liar.

David:

I recognize the fact that you cannot put forward an argument without
resorting to infantile profanity.  But regardless, I am talking about
what Mr. Hofsess is saying on his web site.  Not what is in the
newspaper articles.  The quote I gave from Mr. Hofsess, with him
stating that no information on his web site is available for plastic
bags, is quite plain.  He sells a pamphlet on his web site that is an
instruction brochure on how to use a plastic bag.

Now either he makes available material on plastic bags or he does not.
Which is it?

John Hofsess states:

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

It is evident that the media got it wrong when they stated that he
actually sells plastic bags.  But Mr. Hofsess clearly DOES sell info
and instructions on the plastic bag.  That is what I said he does.

Mr. Hofsess has represented himself falsely.  You can call me a liar
all you want.  I feel your pain about being proven wrong...again.

Ted Gerk

In group talk.euthanasia, article <54ga5m$su6@noc.van.hookup.net>,
egerk@awinc.com (Edward Gerk) wrote:
>wrightd@magic.mb.ca (David C. Wright) wrote:

...

>David:
>
>I recognize the fact that you cannot put forward an argument without
>resorting to infantile profanity.  But regardless, I am talking about
>what Mr. Hofsess is saying on his web site.  Not what is in the
>newspaper articles.  The quote I gave from Mr. Hofsess, with him
>stating that no information on his web site is available for plastic
>bags, is quite plain.  He sells a pamphlet on his web site that is an
>instruction brochure on how to use a plastic bag.
>
>Now either he makes available material on plastic bags or he does not.
>Which is it?

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.

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.

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.

...

-- 
                  David C. Wright (wrightd@magic.mb.ca)
                    http://www.magic.mb.ca/~wrightd

       Alimony: the screwing you get for the screwing you got.

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)

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Edward Gerk wrote:
> [...]
>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. [...]

As has been pointed out at least twice before, this sort of
inconsistency is so trivial as to be unworthy of serious attention. If
someone on your side of the euthanasia/suicide debate committed a
similar error, I wouldn't give a rat's ass.  Your attempt to make a
mountain out of this mole hill says more about you than it does about
Hofsess: it makes you look petty, and invites the suspicion that you
have nothing substantial to support your prohibitionist stance. Get
off it, Ted;  aren't there bigger fish to fry? 


				Jeremy Anderson
				jpanders@uci.edu

Jeremy Paul Anderson <jpanders@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Edward Gerk wrote:
>

>As has been pointed out at least twice before, this sort of
>inconsistency is so trivial as to be unworthy of serious attention. If
>someone on your side of the euthanasia/suicide debate committed a
>similar error, I wouldn't give a rat's ass.  Your attempt to make a
>mountain out of this mole hill says more about you than it does about
>Hofsess: it makes you look petty, and invites the suspicion that you
>have nothing substantial to support your prohibitionist stance. Get
>off it, Ted;  aren't there bigger fish to fry? 

Jeremy:

You miss an important point.  That is that the statements I point out
are all part of the criticism pointed at others, that THEY did not
have their story straight.  I pointed out something that was a lie.  I
was called a liar for doing that.  I merely responded by showing that
what I said was true.

I am sorry if this offends you.  Take me off your Christmas card list.
By me a plastic bag if it makes you happy. (please include the
instructions, but I want the bag with the velcro strips, does it come
in colors?)

Ted

In group talk.euthanasia, article <553fqj$ehq@noc.van.hookup.net>,
egerk@awinc.com (Edward Gerk) wrote:

...

>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. 

OK.  Let me indulge your insanity for a few moments.  Let us assume that,
because Hofsess provides information about a pamphlet that provides
information about how to use a plastic bag to augment suicide, that he
should be thrown in prison for 200 years.  If that is true, then both you
and I are guilty of the same thing, Gerk.  If one level of indirection
applies, then any level of indirection applies, and we are merely the third
level of that indirection.  Ergo, you are as guilty as he.

Now, if you are talking about whether or not Hofsess is telling the truth,
the same question comes to bear.  If he had, on his web-site, the
information on how to use the plastic bag, that would assuredly be
providing information on their use.  However, by providing information on
how to get a pamphlet that tells people how to use one, is he actually
providing information about plastic bags?  If you regard the first level of
indirection as information, yes.  However, by the same criterion, *you*
have mentioned something about plastic bags, and are as guilty as he whom
you seek to condemn.  If, on the other hand, you regard information about
plastic bags as an adjunct to suicide as actually describing how they are
used, then Hofsess is telling the truth.  You're dead meat.  If you are
telling the truth and Hofsess is lying, then you are as guilty as he is.
If you are innocent, then Hofsess is innocent.  You're in a no-win
situation here.  If your original point is true, then you are vindicated,
by all means, but equally culpable.

...

>That is the original quote.  I have proven otherwise.

Actually, Ted, we are still debating whether or not you have proven
anything.  That is what I like to call 'debate', or perhaps, 'discussion'.
You can't proactively assert victory like this without proving before all
and sundry that you're a clueless moron.  Simply restating a tenuous (at
best) proposition does not constitute proof.

..

>What's wrong, David, bad hair day?  Or is it difficult to accept that
>you have lost a debate?

Bad hair?  Really!  Do *you* have bad hair?  Can there *be* "bad hair"?
What a ridiculous concept!  What has your hair done to you lately, Ted, and
why do you hate it so?  Did your mother take offense at your hair?  Did
your classmates ridicule your hair?  Do you have Bill Gates' hair?

Oh, and by the by, you cannot win a debate on personal fiat.  If that were
even possible, then I would declare that I won in the last round.  I would
expect that to be axiomatic, but you apparrently do not realise that.  I'm
not certain what classes you could take to correct that.  "Thought 1.01"
comes to mind, but I'm not sure if anybody offers it.

>As John himself stated:
>
>"There has never been any information about plastic bags on DeathNET".
>(John Hofsess)

I see that you have difficulty using the words, "Refer to the previous
quote".

-- 
                  David C. Wright (wrightd@magic.mb.ca)
                    http://www.magic.mb.ca/~wrightd

               Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

David C. Wright <wrightd@magic.mb.ca> wrote 
[...]
> 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.
> 
> 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.

I think a relevant point is touched here, especially in relation
to (promotion of) euthansia.
One should realize that "merely referring to something"
constitutes "information" indeed (assuming the reference is made
with a certain goal) isn't it?

Of course that does not mean that one is a "horrible criminal"
or "a murderer" or that one "robbed the Royal Canadian Mint" by
discussing certain means.

But it *is* worthwile to be aware of the fact that (the way in
which) mentioning things *has* effects on the spreading or
acceptance of ideas etc. indeed (be it like of little drops
filling the ocean), isn't it?


-- 

==============
Rik van Dongen
Rotterdam
==============

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


>Now, if you are talking about whether or not Hofsess is telling the truth,
>the same question comes to bear.  If he had, on his web-site, the
>information on how to use the plastic bag, that would assuredly be
>providing information on their use.  However, by providing information on
>how to get a pamphlet that tells people how to use one, is he actually
>providing information about plastic bags?  If you regard the first level of
>indirection as information, yes.  However, by the same criterion, *you*
>have mentioned something about plastic bags, and are as guilty as he whom
>you seek to condemn.  If, on the other hand, you regard information about
>plastic bags as an adjunct to suicide as actually describing how they are
>used, then Hofsess is telling the truth.  You're dead meat.  If you are
>telling the truth and Hofsess is lying, then you are as guilty as he is.
>If you are innocent, then Hofsess is innocent.  You're in a no-win
>situation here.  If your original point is true, then you are vindicated,
>by all means, but equally culpable.

Mr. Hofsess advertised the material on plastic bags to be also
available on-line, via Adobe software.  You would be given a password
in order to access the files.  So he was offering instructions
on-line.  As to your other statements, it was Mr. Hofsess who stated
that he did not have any mention of plastic bags on his web site.  I
have never stated that I have never mentioend plastic bags.

 You're wrong again!

>Bad hair?  Really!  Do *you* have bad hair?  Can there *be* "bad hair"?
>What a ridiculous concept!  What has your hair done to you lately, Ted, and
>why do you hate it so?  Did your mother take offense at your hair?  Did
>your classmates ridicule your hair?  Do you have Bill Gates' hair?

I feel your pain about losing again.

Ted