"Capt. Neal®" wrote i

It's beyond my control. I did not bring them here.


YEs you did LIAR!

..


S

"Scotty" wrote in message ...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote i

It's beyond my control. I did not bring them here.


YEs you did LIAR!


Prove it, ASSHOLE!

CN

neal writ; They believe very strongly in freedom of speech as do I.

FREEDOM! freedom has a price. freedom of speech is not
unconditional.

Someone must draw a line somewhere. Do you not agree?

We can't have jerks yelling ''FIRE'' in a theatre. Agreed?

You wouldn't want an older man talking dirty to a pre-teen girl.
Right?

No one wants their neighbor yelling out shakespere at 0200. Well?

So, do we agree that there must be a line somewhere? And if that line
is crossed, there must be consiquences(?) to pay.

Damn, Google has no spell check.

Scotty

"Scotty" wrote in message oups.com...
neal writ; They believe very strongly in freedom of speech as do I.

FREEDOM! freedom has a price. freedom of speech is not
unconditional.

Freedom of speech is unconditional. Here's a refresher course.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Someone must draw a line somewhere. Do you not agree?


I disagree. I don't even buy the yelling fire in a crowded theatre
idiocy. I certainly don't buy the so-called hate speech argument.
Speech is speech. Nowhere in the First Ammendment does it say
congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except
for hate speech, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre or. . . .

We can't have jerks yelling ''FIRE'' in a theatre. Agreed?

Yes we can. That's free speech according to the Constitution.


You wouldn't want an older man talking dirty to a pre-teen girl.
Right?

Happens all the time. It's free speech. It's not my business to
police speech.


No one wants their neighbor yelling out shakespere at 0200. Well?

He is free to yell anything he wants. That he will eventually get
his jaw broken is the result of his ****ing people off but he still
has the right to yell Shakespeare at 0200 hours.


So, do we agree that there must be a line somewhere? And if that line
is crossed, there must be consiquences(?) to pay.

There is no line respecting free speech. Read the First Amendment
again and again until that fact sinks in.

CN

Wait a sec... Neal already does this stuff, except the Shakespeare of
course.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scotty" wrote in message
oups.com...
neal writ; They believe very strongly in freedom of speech as do I.

FREEDOM! freedom has a price. freedom of speech is not
unconditional.

Someone must draw a line somewhere. Do you not agree?

We can't have jerks yelling ''FIRE'' in a theatre. Agreed?

You wouldn't want an older man talking dirty to a pre-teen girl.
Right?

No one wants their neighbor yelling out shakespere at 0200. Well?

So, do we agree that there must be a line somewhere? And if that line
is crossed, there must be consiquences(?) to pay.

Damn, Google has no spell check.

Scotty

Scotty wrote:
neal writ; They believe very strongly in freedom of speech as do I.

FREEDOM! freedom has a price. freedom of speech is not
unconditional.

Someone must draw a line somewhere. Do you not agree?

Who will draw the line? Where will it be drawn?

You and I might not agree on the answer to those questions.


We can't have jerks yelling ''FIRE'' in a theatre. Agreed?

FIRE!!1!!

Yelling "FIRE!" in a newsgroup doesn't cause a panic and
rush to the exits where people get trampled and die.

FIRE!!2!! (neener)


You wouldn't want an older man talking dirty to a pre-teen girl.
Right?

A parent that allows a preteen girl to wander in an adult
environment is not fulfilling their duties as a parent.

This is not Romper Room.


No one wants their neighbor yelling out shakespere at 0200. Well?

This is usenet. How is your sleep disturbed by me POSTING IN ALL
CAPS? (yelling)

Noise abatement laws exist for good reason. Free speech doesn't
mean I get to force people to listen.

Note that I'm not forcing you to read my posts. You chose to do so
of your own free will. You take deliberate and affirmative action
to select my post and read it. If my posts bother you, you can
filter/skip-over/ignore them and they won't cause you any
distress. The point is: it's *your* choice. Your freedom is not
only in what you can say, but also in what you can read.

A netkkkop removes that choice from you. They make the decision
of what you're allowed to read buy removing from your view the
posters they don't like. That infringes on your freedom, as
well as mine and others.


So, do we agree that there must be a line somewhere? And if that line
is crossed, there must be consiquences(?) to pay.

I will agree to this: With freedom comes responsibility.

I exercise my responsibility by staying withing the bounds of
my provider's AUP/TOS and the law; however, I refuse to be
constrained by some nutcase on a power trip.


Damn, Google has no spell check.

and I hace offered no spell lames.

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

"Scotty" tried to defend the snitches by posting:
neal writ; They believe very strongly in freedom of speech as do I.

FREEDOM! freedom has a price. freedom of speech is not
unconditional.

Someone must draw a line somewhere. Do you not agree?

We can't have jerks yelling ''FIRE'' in a theatre. Agreed?

You wouldn't want an older man talking dirty to a pre-teen girl.
Right?

No one wants their neighbor yelling out shakespere at 0200. Well?

So, do we agree that there must be a line somewhere? And if that line
is crossed, there must be consiquences(?) to pay.


Sure, Scotty. Now please point out what Neal and I have done to have
katywails netkkkop us? None of the above have a thing to do with the
snitches katy and ganz.

LP