Talk:Capital punishment/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

3rd Revert

Reverting edit three times within 24 hours is a violation of wikipedia rule. Slightly modyfing the content of tag is no excuse. You may not be familiar with wikipedia policy so I won't report you as long as you remove the tag by yourself and leave it for another 24 hours. Please behave and learn more about wikipedia policies and guideline. FWBOarticle

I haven't broken 3RR -- I haven't even come close. Several sections have been edited several times in the past 24 hours. This is a content dispute based on bias differences. I believe my stance is justified. Please do not remove the POV dispute tag until the dispute is resolved. --James S. 20:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Read my Engrish bit more carefully. I specifically refer to your tag revert. Each time, you reverted to your version of tag. Anyway, I reported it just a while ago so the admin can decide. Good luck and see ya. FWBOarticle

Please note that the dispute tag text is diferent from when it was inserted as a {{disputeabout}} factual dispute tag; I've tried to remove subjects of the dispute as balanced edits are folded in. --James S. 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin will decide whether a slight modification can be used as an excuse. Plus, what count is the original state before you inserted your excessively long tag. 3rr are there to favour status quo. That is why the edit would be in the orignal state at the end of third revert. I specifically wrote "3rd revert" for you but you reverted anyway without explaining your position. Plus, you have made 6th revert (or 4th according to your counting), so your defence is moot. Just self revert and wait for 24 hours. I'm happy to ask admin to forget about my report of your violation if you do so. FWBOarticle

My 2 cents

After reading the fine and intelligent comments posted here and reading about the wrongful convictions subject I have come to formulate this questions:

- Already a person by the last name of Cantu is widely believed to be innocent... why the state of texas cowardly hides and does not admit its FUCK UP???

only "widely believed" in the anti-death penalty camp--go read a pro-death penalty webpage and get the full story. "Believed" also implies not known for certain. Fact of the matter is that Cantu was a criminal and had actually attempted murder in the past. The evidence wasn't the best to say that he did it(he probably should have got life) but then again there is only speculation that he didn't do it.

- If ever an executed person is proven innocent... is the goverment liable? do they have any responsability, morally and ethically to the family of the person they just wrongly executed??...

- It is accepted in most religions around the world, that life is a gift given by a superior power ( Allah, God, Jehova, etc ) who the hell is the state of texas and the US government to override beliefs that have survived for 1000's of years??? who the hell are they to decide who lives and who dies????

- Eventhough there is strong evidence in several US states that innocent people have been put to death,,,why don't these states order an investigation or something to finally let the truth come to light???? why do they hide behind their " inmunity" which they can shove up their asses?? just because stupid " district attorneys" wanted to rack up their conviction rate and then they do not admit their mistakes...they should all burn in hell.....

my 2 cents —This unsigned comment was added by 66.212.201.23 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the rest... keep the "Blind, Torture, and Kill" alive... He definately benefits society. ER MD 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, keep a cool head, please! Excessive profanity, sarcasm, and punctuation marks are not helping change anyone's point of view, nor do they contribute to editors seeking to improve this article.Emmett5 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Killing versus Execution

This is one of the most amazing things I have seen...somebody trying to completely take over a subject to write their point of view. I will continue to revert because on one level I find it fascinating and then on another level I find it funny. Do the following: wiki both execution and killing. Also go to amnesty international's webpage and the death penalty info center webpage. They both use "wrongful execution rate" Changing it to the "wrongful killing rate" only demonstrates that your beliefs are outside of mainstream thought. ER MD 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That was your suggestion, to make it consistent, because execution is an ambiguous term. I, too, will continue to revert for the same reasons you state: you are obviously trying to push your point of view. You do not want to include balanced treatment of the wrongful killing/execution rate because you know that even one wrongful killing is indefensible when the deterrent effect is indistinguishable from life imprisonment. I have that simple, moral, plain fact on my side, and you keep trying to suppress it. If it didn't bother you so much, you wouldn't keep trying to suppress it, would you? --James S. 20:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

James you are a complete pencil dick retard. You sound like the guy on the payground who got their ass kicked every day. As for your reverts..I will switch to a revert a week because you are just an idiot! Do you not realize that "execution" redirects to capital punishment? Or is your head too far up your ass? Do you not realize that all of the anti-death penalty groups refer to it as the "wrongful execution rate." "Wrongful killing rate" is your invention and it just demonstrates your fringe knee-jerk reactions. Morality is not on your side... you have yet to name one person in the US that has been proven to be innocent after execution. It does bother me that they allow people like you to write in Wiki since you destroying the article into an anti-death penalty blog. Not one of your entries have been supported by other people. You opinions are so thin and there is no depth to your analysis or writings. Stick with the molecular analysis as evidenced by our talk page... Seems like you even piss people off writing about chemicals. ...but I am not surprised. ER MD 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're still here, and you're still pretending to be an MD, good for you!--64.12.116.73 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow² ER MD, you must be quite inspiring that all these random people with 2 or 3 edits keeps showing up and reverting to your version, and since you're an ER MD in LA, CA you wouldn't know anything about this, but most of the anon users doing this, the 168.216.0.0 - 168.216.255.255 users, they're editing from a high school in west virginia, being an ER MD in LA, CA of course you'd know nothing of this--152.163.100.73 01:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow all the idiots are out now claiming that I'm in West Viginia. Take a look at this IP moron. Sounds to me that most people agree that the above two people and of course James are complete and utter retards. ER MD

In that case, you really need to get a new systems admin, because even though the ip is registered to the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, it seems that the ip is being used for other things, also if you're in LA, shouldn't the domain be registered to the SCAL office, not the NCAL one? isn't that a rather long commute? also how exactly are an ER doc if they don't even operate an ER? next time hack a more convincing ip--152.163.100.73 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• well hello there, 162.119.232.101| bathsquid.peosnap.navy.mil:8888 (squid/2.5.STABLE3)--152.163.100.73 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow is right. This disscussion has some of the dumbest people around. Seems like that above proxy was from 2004--another great catch imbecile. I somehow hacked into another IP...please--you give me way too much computer credit since I am only a user and the last time I wrote a program was in 1988. I must only presume that people are jealous of the fact that I have one of the coolest jobs around that makes awesome money. I'm not going to waste time doing a proxy--for one, I don't know how, and two, I don't even see the point since I run an up-to-date firewall/antivirus prog and that is it. James must attract morons to his cause with paranoid delusions of grandiosity. Unfortunately, the fact remains that people running queries on an IP are a bunch of tools. The only reason that I am here is because I enjoy writing, economics, and debate. I also edited a few medical pages but that may not been seen unless you are an administrator. You are all the retards (James included)... ER MD 20:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are irrational, you edited from an ip assigned to a chain of HMOs in northern california, that doesn't even have an emergency care center, and the ip in question has clearly been compromised that it's even showing on a list of known proxies. To top that all off the last, what page full of people, to come along and revert to your version were all editing from a gradeschool in virginia, generally they make you actually graduate from HS before they let you take an MCAT, no?--64.12.116.73 21:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow you are the dumbest fucking idiot ever. Instead of your stupid ws.arin.net why don't you try ip2location.com. As for the location in Virginia with the other tracker--that is where VERIZON is headquartered! Put the IP that I used at work into ip2location.com and it comes up LOS ANGELES. My personal IP is Long Beach, CA. Query that queer boy. You dumb fuck. Speaking of idiots...why are you so retarded that you have to use AOL. And what is your obsession with me? Are you that jealous? Did you aspire to be a doctor but failed? I look forward to you agreeing with me that you are the dumbest fucking idiot ever. I had to say that twice because maybe it didn't get through your thick skull. More about me: I make about 270K per year, live in a million dollar home, drive a performance package BMW, and have a hot girlfriend. All at the age of 31! :) ER MD 11:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So, if you are really a medical doctor, then answer this: Who discovered the dietary essentiality of magnesium and potassium? What makes those minerals significant in relation to the genders? --James S. 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

James, you continue to prove your ignorance and stupidity. I'd probably bet you are the moron with the AOL account claiming that I'm in Virginia. If you have any life exeperience or know any doctors you would know that very few if any docs could tell you the answer to your unimportant question. I can only presume that you are a grad student making 20K a year because a professor would have more common sense and life experience than you. That or you are stuck on stupid. Also, only a student would come up with such a retarded question with zero implications to medical treatments (virutually nobody walks around with abnormal potassium levels or magnesium level unless they have medical problem and are taking drugs--although periodic hypokalemic paralysis is the only condition that I could think of right now that would be genetic). Let me tell you what we use Magnesium for... 1)Torsades de pointes -- look I even edited the page on Feb 20th Jackass. 2) Prolonged QT 3) Atrial tachycardia 4) hypomagnesemic patients (typically secondary to sepsis) 5) Severe COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and severe asthma (both conditions if they are about to go into respiratory failure(typically asthma) or ventilatory failure (typically COPD)--as a means to try and avoid intubation). As for potassium we only get concerned if it is too high. Death from low potassium is a very rare event and it must be very, very low... as in less that 1.3 in my experience and typically in patients with pre-existing CAD (coronary artery disease). High potassium is the main concern. At a level under 6 without EKG changes the treatment is kayexalate, if there are any EKG changes of a K level above 6 its one amp of IV calcium chloride (even if the textbooks state calcium gluconate), then one amp of D50, IV regular insulin 10 units (or more if they are diabetic, less if they have renal failure since insulin is cleared by the kidneys), albuterol since the beta agonist shifts potassium into the cell, and then kayexalate (and of course IV fluids such as half normal). The ultimate treatment if you cannot bring down the potassium level is dialysis. Obviously people with end stage renal disease on HD would get this treatment as sson as possible. Again James S. you are only proving your extreme ignornace. ER MD 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

168.216.147.124 (talk · contribs) and a whole bunch of his friends seems to be rather fond of your version, no matter what database you use, it's still registered to the WV Department of Education--64.12.116.73 21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The answers are: nobody knows yet for the first two, and males are likely to be deficient in potassium, while females are likely to be deficient in magnesium. Right here in the U.S. of A. Another question: What are the symptoms of deficiency? --James S. 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe you haven't realized this yet, but he's not going to answer the question, he'll just call you a retard, then copy/paste yet another section out of one of the ten gazillion sample med school application essays, available on the internet--64.12.116.73 21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You two are really fucking stupid. ER MD 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I so don't care about this anymore--205.188.117.73 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(back left) Answer: Magnesium deficiency results in irritability, and potassium deficiency is implicated in cardiovascular disease. What real M.D. wouldn't know that? --James S. 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually James you are wrong..learn more about potassium and magnesium.ER MD 00:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the scholarly medical literature supports my position. Mahan, L.K. and Escott-Stump, S., eds. (2000) "Median daily magnesium intake for males and females in the United States compared to the 1998 RDAs," Krause's food, nutrition, and diet therapy, 10th ed. (Philadelphia: Saunders Harcourt) p. 121. If people like you were more familiar with the dietary conditions in their own countries, and familiar with the symptomatic implications, then maybe M.D.s would be able to recommend the proper corrective actions, decreasing general irritation of the population, and leading to less need for state-sanctioned killings, and less need for emergency medicine. But then your skills wouldn't be so much in demand, would they? In any case, you are economically conflicted so your opinion should be disregarded. --James S. 00:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

James you are embarassing yourself. The RDA is premised on eating a stardard deviation above what is actually needed therefore ensuring that there is not a deficiency. "The recommended intakes of essential nutrients must, therefore, by definition, exceed the requirements of practically all healthy persons." (Introduction to Clinical Nutrition Sardesai page 2 in my 1998 edition) Even if you do not eat the RDA for most nutrients, you will not manifest deficiency symptoms. James face the facts... You are a pinko liberal with no concept of reality since you are still in school while daddy is paying your bills. The fact that I pay out about 80K in taxes to support your worthless graduate degree in basket-weaving makes me sick. Emergency medicine will always exist because there are idiots like you who think that taking echinacea cures all woes. I must prove you wrong again... Quote from my med school nutrition book (Introduction to Clinical Nutrition page 86-87): "Because of the wide distribution of magnesium in plant and animal products, primary deficiency of magnesium is rare in individuals with normal organ function. The fall in circulating magnesium concentration is seen only with extreme depletion." The fact that you would even give credence to the above study demonstrates that you do not even understand what you are talking about. Comparing intake to an artifical number generated by researchers to guarantee that deficiency does not occur is worthless research. Again, walk away embarrassed bitch. Look, I called you a name again. Go cry to admin. ER MD 11:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your perspective as someone who primarily treats those who have fallen so far as to end up in the emergency room is valuable, but I urge you to consider that it might be a unique perspective. Perhaps our differences are partly due to our different perspectives. Do you agree that if people recieved the recommended levels of magnesium, that the incidence rate of symptoms including irritation in the population would decrease? Do you agree that such symptoms contribute to the crime rate, and therefore also the demand for your services? Again, please try to debate in a polite fashion. --James S. 20:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed insertion

"Some supporters of capital punishment, even the highly educated, are reduced to name-calling when confronted with the implications of their position." Diff1, diff2. --James S. 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go crying to mommy... bring it up with admin and they can see your stupid edits. I have not been contacted yet since most people probably agree that you are an idiot, that your POV is fringe, that your distort pro-death penalty positions, have an extremist anti-death penalty position, and converting back to your edits incessantly is actually violating wiki policy more than me calling you a f#$k face. ER MD 00:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Diff3. --James S. 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Takes three seconds to delete your work. ER MD 11:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And my work too but for some reason you do not feel the need to comment on this. Perhaps you could explain why or reinstate the UK commentary Nickhk

Does China execute persons aged less than 18?

A recent version of the page claimed that China both did not and did execute people under 18 years of age. Can we get a fresh source on that, please? --James S. 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

James: The difficult aspect with you is that you are a far-left liberal who incorrectly thinks that you are morally superior and smarter and therefore can add whatever you think is right even if it is not a supported view. As an example, you can write that you think that capital punishment violates human rights, but you can't write that capital punishment is state-sanctioned killing even if it actually is. The NPOV position is that capital punishment is the legally imposed sentence of death, or simply "execution." Read a newspaper, even the rags written in SF state that the "state of California executed Tookie Williams... etc." Likewise, the "wrongful killing rate" is your invention so go write it on your blog. It is not a recognized argument found in any anti-death penalty webpage. Finally, there has yet to be a case of a proven wrongful execution in the US since the reimposition of the death penalty. You can't use statistics to try and prove that one has occured. If you understood statistics more, then you would know that statistics are useful when the numbers are very large and there is the potential for a lot of variation. With only a few more than 1000 executions, it would be easy to review all of the cases and find one wrongful execution. Its been done, and the answer is there is not one proven case. So in reference to your hurt feelings, you can take your POV and go write a blog. It's not going to get published here. In fact, I take pleasure in reversing your edits. ER MD 00:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. That's like saying you've never made any mistakes because you don't have any malpractice judgements. Or that people without any tickets never speed. There are plenty of expositions on the wrongful execution rate on anti-death penalty sites, and the statistics are unanswerable, which is why you simply keep deleting them instead of adding balance which you have done to points which do have valid counterarguments. --James S.

Did I just see you write the "wrongful execution rate". Holy shit... what made you change it from the "wrongful killing rate."????? Your POV is so far up your ass that you are blinded by bacteroides... :) Face the facts, you are not interested in balance, you only want your point of view. The "wrongful execution rate" is part of the debate and belongs in the debate section especially for the conjecture which you proposed, and still, in the US you have yet to prove ONE wrongful execution. PLEASE just give me the name of ONE person since the reimposition of the death penalty! JUST ONE!!! Learn more about statistics before you try to distort them. And speaking of lies, the anti-death penalty crowd is the biggest liars around. Present your argument in the debate section. I propose a "arguments against" and an "arguments in support" section. Use the issues that are accepted positions from the anti-death penalty pages and allow two points of views. Otherwise, you will continue to revert and I will continue to revert. :) 71.107.64.180 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that all the little exhonoration money there is goes into trying to save those who are still alive. Nobody wants to spend money to exhonorate the already-executed, and district attornies fight such attempts tooth-and-nail because they don't want to go down in history as the first documented wrongful executioners. Anyway, this is very U.S.-centric. There are documented wrongful killings in the U.K. (which you deleted without explanation a few days ago.) Do you think the U.S. justice system is so superior to the U.K.'s that our larger system never makes mistakes? The statistics are plain as day: about ten death row exhonorations per year for the past decade from DNA alone, and DNA is available in less than 10% of the cases. Try to spin that, I dare you. --James S. 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

read the evan case: "When Evans was shown the clothing taken from the bodies of his wife and child, he was asked whether he was responsible for their deaths. He replied with a simple “Yes.”" So much for wrongful execution. The guy was a murderer. The DPIC is well know to lie about the statistics for reversal. As for DNA evidence, I've already discussed this with you and you had NO reply.

"Testing DNA for evidence in past cases is fraught with problems. As an example, a DNA test can confirm a conviction such as the "wrongfully convicted" "innocent" Roger Keith Coleman. It can be equivocal as in a partial match indicating either DNA degradation or contamination. It could be a complete mismatch which may not mean anything--we have a bunch of DNA from other people all around us--so the type of evidence (i.e. blood versus hair, vs. semen, etc. must be investigated) Or it can implicate another person whose DNA has already been run. Obviously, the only benefit of DNA is either confirming the guity, implicating someone else, or demonstrating that an absolute integral aspect of the case shows DNA that is not the convicted. True, DNA has shown that other people have been convicted for crimes commited by other people--so you are partially correct and I encourage you wo add that in on the DNA testing section. The interesting aspect about your argument is that DNA is a doubled edged sword. By arguing for overturning past convictions, you must also admit that cases tried from here on out will be much more precise since the juries will be able to weigh the DNA evidence. Therefore, DNA not only may prove wrongful convictions in the past, but it makes all future convictions much stronger and hence is an argument which supports the future application of the death penalty. Having read your user profile, I noticed that you support the ACLU. With that in mind, I doubt that you will present both sides of the argument if you opt to write a section on DNA evidence." Again: GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE IN THE US. Last year there were 60 executions and you claim that 10 were wrongful. That makes you fucking stupid. 71.107.64.180 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

James... again you try to revert and force the page to your distorted POV. Notice how nobody else has attempted to revert back to your point of view. The concensus is not on your side, so stick to the edits on uranium chemistry. Its appears that you have some knowledge, but you have neither intelligence nor wisdom. You are a complete idiot. :) ER MD 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You spoke too soon. I hope your patients have the benefit of more careful reasoning. --James S. 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch it!!!May I remind you of the civility rules!!! lol 71.107.64.180 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between "You are a complete idiot" and "I hope your patients have the benefit of more careful reasoning" then you make my case for me. --James S. 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

James... this is my third day off so I am enjoying destorying your weak arguments while I clean up the house. My recommmendation to you is this: Get out of grad school. The housing market has skyrocketed, and the stock market (especially the Russell 2000 index) has posted some awesome gains. Not to mention my IGE and EEM ETFs. The quicker you realize that you are fighting a losing battle, the sooner you will be able to figure out how you can actually contribute to society as opposed to your continual leeching of government funds supporting your wimpy ass. Its expensive to live in California, so why don't you try to make a living as opposed to trying to keep convicted murderers alive. 71.107.64.180 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment about reverting

Please, folks, when you revert due to vandalism, be sure to revert to the immediately preceding good copy of the article. If you go back too far, we end up losing the good additions and edits that have been made to the article. YellowPigNowNow 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that...

Did you know that when China executes someone, their family pays for the execution, incl. paying for the bullets if the execution is by firing squad ? Martial Law 01:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Please think about your edits

1. Adding "an irrevocable" to punishment is REDUNDANT when it follows execution. It seems to me to be a clear attempt at adding POV.

2. The "wrongful death rate" information is already in the article, and placing a paragraph on it in the intro ruins the flow and balance of the introduction.

3. The third paragraph of the introduction is perfectly balanced as is. Adding another anti-death penalty sentence to it ruins the 50/50 neutrality that exists in the paragraph. The paragraph simply states the arguments on each side. Adding a rebuttal to the first argument to the paragraph seems to me to be another attempt at adding POV.

4. The "neutrality" warning that keeps getting placed is silly, because the explanation justifying the warning seems to be about a debate concerning capital punishment itself, not this article. The addition of the warning is especially ridiculous (and hypocritical) when the one who keeps placing the warning is the one who keeps adding POV sentences to the article in areas where the article is perfectly neutral. YellowPigNowNow 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

James is not required to think about his edits. He believes he is right and therefore the rules do not apply to him. Again reverting his changes... ER MD 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to be a summary. The discussion of the wrongful killing rate has evolved into one paragraph in the summary and two in the body, because the entire topic was removed when the debate article was split of (based on "ethics," whatever that means.) There is simply no reason to scrub away any mention of wrongful killings. I reluctantly agree with most of the other points. --James S. 10:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)