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

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

Got ya...Now the retards can babble at will, and damn sure do not let
the ****faces post anything on topic.

Soque (Enjoque) Pupette writed;


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.

Well yeah, that was to be my next point. But neal went off on an
incoherant rant.
My line might be further out than your line. Gaynzys line would
definitley be short.
Also, the consequences for crossing the line will be different. You
might flame, or 'flonk' a line crosser, I would KF them, Gaynzy will
tell his Mommy (report abuse to ISP).

Whose to say what's right?



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





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


Agreed. but constant swearing, vulgar abusive language, in an
established group of ''friendly sailors'' is disrubtive, to say the
least.




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.

You think letting one's daughter go to school is neglectful?






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)

It's knot.




""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. "

Right.




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.


Good for you, but I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
cross).

Scotty

Scotty wrote:
Soque (Enjoque) Pupette writed;

[...]

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

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


Agreed. but constant swearing, vulgar abusive language, in an
established group of ''friendly sailors'' is disrubtive, to say the
least.

It's the fight that ensues when someone tries to appoint themselves
as the authority over what's allowed to be said that causes the
disruption. If folks just filtered/ignored it and continued their
normal conversations there wouldn't be a disruption. (there wouldn't
be a fight.)


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.

You think letting one's daughter go to school is neglectful?

Huh?

There is no comparison between a school for preteens and Usenet.

You won't find a section of the library at the grade school labeled:
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.*

[...]

I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
cross).

Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter.

--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque

I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
cross).


"Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter. "


And neither is a bunch of ''flonkers''.

Why burn down the house to kill a few ants?

Scotty

Scotty wrote:
:: I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
:: cross).
:
:
: "Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter. "
:
:
: And neither is a bunch of ''flonkers''.
:
: Why burn down the house to kill a few ants?

dude, there -is- no burning yet, this is just a minor incursion so far. more
of a protest than a full-scale attack.
to use your insect analogy, sometimes infestations of cockroaches by pest
control people need the entire house to be fumigated.
I'm sincerely hoping it won't come to that; only you regulars have the
ability to persuade the culprits to behave and apologise.
:
: Scotty

--
Steve Leyland
mhm32x16 Smeeter#24 WSD#41
flower: three 6 four 9 five 8 eight 9
em ess en: my 1st name at purgatory dot org
Alcatroll Labs Inc (bongwater maintenance dept)
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/
http://www.radioxanadu.tk

=^MEOW MEOW ARMY^=

You know my motto: Forgive and uh... the other thing.
================================================== ====================
My suggestion is to completely ignore idiots like Leland. They are the
lowest form of pond scum. People like him have tried unsuccessfully in
the past to disrupt the newsgroup. The best medicine is to completely
ignore them. As I'm sure you'll see, they're most intelligent response
is to yell nasty names. Other than that, they have nothing.

jg, netKKKop, alt.sailing.asa
================================================== ====================
"Warning to all:
Steve Leyland is a trolling **** of the highest order. Killfile the
muppet now and move on. Even the briefest of searches on his past
UseNet posts will reveal the truth. You have been warned. *plonk*"

bear, netKKKop, uk.rec.motorcycles
================================================== ====================
"This sig is an abomination of all that is good and right about usenet.
Do the entire world a favor and REMOVE YOURSELF FROM USENET ALTOGETHER,
DUMBASS."

miguel, soc.singles
================================================== ====================
"must you include your 75847548574893579345 gigabyte sig file in every
****ing post? You're very annoying."

projectile vomit chick, alt.music.ozzy
================================================== ====================
"I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut
And "Thou shalt not," writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires."

William Blake.
================================================== ====================
"When the Earth has been ravaged and the animals are dying, a tribe of
people from all races, creeds and colours shall put their faith in
deeds, not words, and make the land green again. They shall be known as
Warriors of the Rainbow, protectors of the environment."

Native American prophecy


|\ _.-'~~""'~`'~)
/, ~-,__,,,.'~ ,-;;--''
|,4) ./ ' ; ;/'
'-~~;'@ ( ; ;
_.--'' _.-_..' .;.'
(,_..----''' (,..--''

Meow

"Soque (Enjoque) Pupette" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:
Soque (Enjoque) Pupette writed;

[...]

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

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


Agreed. but constant swearing, vulgar abusive language, in an
established group of ''friendly sailors'' is disrubtive, to say the
least.

It's the fight that ensues when someone tries to appoint themselves
as the authority over what's allowed to be said that causes the
disruption. If folks just filtered/ignored it and continued their
normal conversations there wouldn't be a disruption. (there wouldn't
be a fight.)


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.

You think letting one's daughter go to school is neglectful?

Huh?

There is no comparison between a school for preteens and Usenet.

Yeah, you're right. It's more like high school.

John Cairns



[...]

I assume some ISPs have different TOS (lines to
cross).

Yes, but the abuse@ address is not the newsgroup babysitter.

--
,,,
.oo
c
- Soque

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