Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:22:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".
Inciting to riot.
Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who
organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.
I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be
allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".
No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.
Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included.
Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech
I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?
Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely
"not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Nope.

Why not?

Because it's true?

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:32:29 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:20:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Inciting to riot.

Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who
organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.

I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".

No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.

Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?

Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely
"not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

I'm not gonna take sides here, but perhaps the Supreme Court will
eventually
define hate speech not by what is said, but by the reaction to what is
said.
And if that's not vague enough, guess what just fell off the bookcase
behind
me.

ROTFL!!!

You statue of Jack Bruce?

Close, but no cigar. The A.J. McLane Encyclopedia of Fish Cookery.

Ah - fish cookery.

Pansy. :)

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:50:00 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:13:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Inciting to riot.

Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.

I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".

No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.

Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?

Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Define "obscenity"

No changing the subject and answer the question.

Would that be hate speech?

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:33:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:22:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".
Inciting to riot.
Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who
organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.
I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be
allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".
No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.
Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included.
Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech
I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?
Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely
"not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Nope.

Why not?

Because it's true?

Ah - so that would be hate speech then?

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:33:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:22:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan

wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".
Inciting to riot.
Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who
organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.
I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be
allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot
or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".
No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate
speech".

They are two seperate concepts.
Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included.
Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech
I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad
suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?
Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and
purposely
"not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Nope.

Why not?

Because it's true?

Ah - so that would be hate speech then?

One criterion, maybe.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:56:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:57:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:50:00 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:13:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Inciting to riot.

Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.

I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".

No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.

Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?

Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Define "obscenity"

No changing the subject and answer the question.

Would that be hate speech?

I didn't change the subject. After your many evasive manuvers to avoid the
truth, I thought I would give you another possible way to look at things without
completely losing face.

Unfortunate that you can't seem to define what you claim you know.

Saying that you know it when you see it is not only infantile, it
shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Sad really.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:56:26 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

those people that can see flavors and feel colors

Ah -well...

McDonald's, believe it or not, has done a lot of research in this area
and, of all things, with it's french fries. Mickey D's was the
experimenter in the 1970s that did the famous light experiment in
which a dinner was served under lighting conditions that made the food
look appealing and the diners were very satisfied with the meal. The
next day, the same meal was served under lighting that made the food
unappealing and the diners reported odd tastes and flavors that made
the food unappealing. They took that to heart and experimented with
their fries doing all kinds of neat things to them finally settling on
the current look.

The Air Force also did the famous green steak experiment in which
vegetables were brown (and perfectly edible - they were colored
differently) and the steak was green. All the Airmen involved
reported that the steak tasted like broccoli and the veggies (I forget
what they were) tasted like steak.

Brightly colored foods frequently seem to taste better than
bland-looking foods, even when the flavor compounds are identical.
Foods that somehow look off-color often seem to have off tastes.

As to feeling colors...

Red - passion, Yellow - cheerful, Blue - Peace, Gray - Gloom and Doom.

The mind is a wonderful thing. :)

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

New space available at the bush jr butt crack, yukyuk.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Embattled Interior official resigns post
5/1/2007, 7:06 p.m. ET
By MATTHEW DALY
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Interior Department official accused of pressuring
government scientists to make their research fit her policy goals has
resigned.

Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks,
submitted her resignation letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a
department spokesman said Tuesday.

MacDonald resigned a week before a House congressional oversight committee
was to hold a hearing on accusations that she violated the Endangered
Species Act, censored science and mistreated staff of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

MacDonald was recently rebuked by the department's inspector general, who
told Congress in a report last month that she broke federal rules and
should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to
private groups.

Interior Department spokesman Hugh Vickery confirmed MacDonald's
resignation but declined to comment further.

Environmentalists cheered the departure of MacDonald, who they say tried
to bully government scientists into altering their findings, often without
scientific basis.

"Julie MacDonald's reign of terror over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
is finally over," said Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for
Biological Diversity. "Endangered species and scientists everywhere are
breathing a sigh of relief."

MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences,
had served in her post since 2004. She was a senior adviser in the
department for two years before that.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said MacDonald had "betrayed the mission she swore
to uphold," adding that her actions "undermined both the work and the
integrity of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its many dedicated
employees."

Wyden placed a hold Monday on President Bush's nomination of Lyle Laverty
to be assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks until
allegations against MacDonald were resolved.

The inspector general's report said MacDonald tried to remove protections
for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable
study, and reduced by 80 percent the amount of streams to be protected to
help bull trout recover in the Pacific Northwest.

MacDonald also pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings
on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations
would not be harmed, the report said.

___

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Wed, 02 May 2007 21:43:24 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Synesthesia

Interesting you should bring that up.

I have absolute perfect pitch - which is not considered synesthesia
unless it's coupled with something.

In my case, it's color - I see the key of C as red, A as blue and so
on. Chords are also colors and the really odd thing is that they don't
match the notes. I don't see colors in numbers, but I do see colors
in letters and words - both vowels and nouns.

Somehow it's related to my dyslexia disorder - or at least that's what
some witch doctors think. :)

The interesting thing (stop me if this is TMIland) is that the letter
colors actually helped me overcome the dyslexia - I came to associate
the correct combinations by the colors. I don't even notice it now
that I'm "of an age" and it's only when the subject comes up that I
start to pay attention to it.

Oh well, enough about me. I mean, I know this is always about me, but
I'm willing to give up space to others. :)

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:56:26 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

those people that can see flavors and feel colors

Ah -well...

McDonald's, believe it or not, has done a lot of research in this area
and, of all things, with it's french fries. Mickey D's was the
experimenter in the 1970s that did the famous light experiment in
which a dinner was served under lighting conditions that made the food
look appealing and the diners were very satisfied with the meal. The
next day, the same meal was served under lighting that made the food
unappealing and the diners reported odd tastes and flavors that made
the food unappealing. They took that to heart and experimented with
their fries doing all kinds of neat things to them finally settling on
the current look.

The Air Force also did the famous green steak experiment in which
vegetables were brown (and perfectly edible - they were colored
differently) and the steak was green. All the Airmen involved
reported that the steak tasted like broccoli and the veggies (I forget
what they were) tasted like steak.

Brightly colored foods frequently seem to taste better than
bland-looking foods, even when the flavor compounds are identical.
Foods that somehow look off-color often seem to have off tastes.

As to feeling colors...

Red - passion, Yellow - cheerful, Blue - Peace, Gray - Gloom and Doom.

The mind is a wonderful thing. :)



So I've got a passionate truck?
Maybe that's why it always wants to tailgate those little European imports.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Wed, 2 May 2007 23:13:36 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:56:26 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

those people that can see flavors and feel colors

Ah -well...

McDonald's, believe it or not, has done a lot of research in this area
and, of all things, with it's french fries. Mickey D's was the
experimenter in the 1970s that did the famous light experiment in
which a dinner was served under lighting conditions that made the food
look appealing and the diners were very satisfied with the meal. The
next day, the same meal was served under lighting that made the food
unappealing and the diners reported odd tastes and flavors that made
the food unappealing. They took that to heart and experimented with
their fries doing all kinds of neat things to them finally settling on
the current look.

The Air Force also did the famous green steak experiment in which
vegetables were brown (and perfectly edible - they were colored
differently) and the steak was green. All the Airmen involved
reported that the steak tasted like broccoli and the veggies (I forget
what they were) tasted like steak.

Brightly colored foods frequently seem to taste better than
bland-looking foods, even when the flavor compounds are identical.
Foods that somehow look off-color often seem to have off tastes.

As to feeling colors...

Red - passion, Yellow - cheerful, Blue - Peace, Gray - Gloom and Doom.

The mind is a wonderful thing. :)

So I've got a passionate truck?
Maybe that's why it always wants to tailgate those little European imports.

You have a RED truck?

Pansy. :)

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On May 2, 9:11 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:56:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:57:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:50:00 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:13:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Inciting to riot.

Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.

I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".

No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.

Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?

Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Define "obscenity"

No changing the subject and answer the question.

Would that be hate speech?

I didn't change the subject. After your many evasive manuvers to avoid the
truth, I thought I would give you another possible way to look at things without
completely losing face.

Unfortunate that you can't seem to define what you claim you know.

Saying that you know it when you see it is not only infantile, it
shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Sad really.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ouch

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".
Inciting to riot.
Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.
I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".
No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.
Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?



If you are low-life Texas redneck, and you get up in front of a larger
group of same and say, "let's catch us one of those damned n*****s,
chain him to the back of the pick-up and drag him to death," you'd
likely be found guilty of hate speech. As you should be. And murder.

Why is hate illegal?

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

If we got in front of a large crowd and said Republicans are useless
excrement and don't deserve to live
, would that be hate speech?

The problem with making thoughts, opinions and words illegal is it reminds
me of George Orwell and Big Brother. Shouldn't we make the act illegal and
not worry about the words.

Churchill made some very strong speeches in his day that might qualify as
"hate speech".



"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".
Inciting to riot.
Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who
organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.
I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".
No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.
Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?



If you are low-life Texas redneck, and you get up in front of a larger
group of same and say, "let's catch us one of those damned n*****s, chain
him to the back of the pick-up and drag him to death," you'd likely be
found guilty of hate speech. As you should be. And murder.

Why is hate illegal?

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Thu, 3 May 2007 06:54:31 -0400, wrote:

The problem with making thoughts, opinions and words illegal is it reminds
me of George Orwell and Big Brother. Shouldn't we make the act illegal and
not worry about the words.

Churchill made some very strong speeches in his day that might qualify as
"hate speech".

Ah - finally - reason.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Thu, 03 May 2007 06:51:56 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Thu, 03 May 2007 01:11:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:56:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:57:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:50:00 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 23:13:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 22:35:13 GMT, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:07:32 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 15:23:04 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:11:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 14:46:05 -0400, Charlie Morgan
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 18:33:34 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 13:09:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 02 May 2007 16:11:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Give me an example of "hate speech".

Inciting to riot.

Hmmmm....

Inciting to riot: "Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes,
encourages, or participates in a riot.

I think we should kill all the __________. They shouldn't be allowed
to breathe our air!

That's hate speech that could end up encouraging others to riot or
commit criminal acts that would qualify as "Hate Crimes".

No - that's inciting to riot. Has nothing to do with "hate speech".

They are two seperate concepts.

Depends on how you fill in that obvious BLANK space I included. Insert
a racial slur or the name of a specific "protected class", and it
becomes both inciting to riot, AND hate speech

I understand what you are saying, but they are different.

For instance:

If I called a group of people "vegetarian tree hugging salad suckers"
and they are incensed enough to riot, that's inciting a riot.

If I say the same thing and they don't riot, is that still hate
speech?

Okay, I now understand that you merely want to be obtuse, and purposely "not get
it".

Not at all - it's a perfectly valid question.

To wit: What constitutes "hate speech".

Let's try something different then.

Let's say that during the course of a conversation here, that I make a
comment about Christian Conservatives - say "all Christian
Conservatives are retarded". Further, let's say that I am offended by
that comment.

Would that be hate speech?

Define "obscenity"

No changing the subject and answer the question.

Would that be hate speech?

I didn't change the subject. After your many evasive manuvers to avoid the
truth, I thought I would give you another possible way to look at things without
completely losing face.

Unfortunate that you can't seem to define what you claim you know.

Saying that you know it when you see it is not only infantile, it
shows a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

Sad really.

I'm not the one who seems to be having a very hard time understanding this. Go
ahead, tell us what you think "Hate Speech" is. We are all waiting.

It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

You have a RED truck?

Pansy. :)


I was leaning toward a charcoal colour... but then I made the mistake of
asking the wife's opinion.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On 03 May 2007 12:27:15 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:


Congress can ONLY involve itself in matters EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE
CONSTITUTION. How ****ing hard is that to understand, ass****?

Prostitute, we try to refrain from the name calling which you seem to
enjoy. Usually it seems to indicate who is losing the debate.


You're seeing Fred on a *good* day. This is how he used to talk to his wife
& kids before they left him and got the restraining order.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On 03 May 2007 12:27:15 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:


Congress can ONLY involve itself in matters EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE
CONSTITUTION. How ****ing hard is that to understand, ass****?

Prostitute, we try to refrain from the name calling which you seem to
enjoy. Usually it seems to indicate who is losing the debate.

Of course, some here seem to think name calling is quite proper and
expected.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

(hate speech)

It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On May 3, 12:26 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

(hate speech)



It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

I know I can not debate on the level you all can on this, but Hugly
was on tv last night and he made a comment that I will ponder for a
while. He said, "It's not what someone calls you, it's what you answer
to". Realizing he is a commedian, I still found many of his comments
on Imus and speech, pretty fair. Then he proceeded to say "Imus
shouldn't have called them ho's, they were not ho's, but they were
some nappey headed, ugly girls on that team...". Hugley words, not
mine.

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On 3 May 2007 09:34:12 -0700, wrote:

On May 3, 12:26 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

(hate speech)



It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

I know I can not debate on the level you all can on this, but Hugly
was on tv last night and he made a comment that I will ponder for a
while. He said, "It's not what someone calls you, it's what you answer
to". Realizing he is a commedian, I still found many of his comments
on Imus and speech, pretty fair. Then he proceeded to say "Imus
shouldn't have called them ho's, they were not ho's, but they were
some nappey headed, ugly girls on that team...". Hugley words, not
mine.

I don't know Hugley, so I can't debate on your level with that, but
that makes sense. Somebody else - Tim? - said he knows it when he
hears it. Imus isn't a hater, just an ahole. Watched his show a lot
before he got canned and what was most amazing about it was how
so many bigshots of all political stripes would come on his show and
kiss his cocaine/alcohol riddled ass. Then he shot off his mouth
against the wrong target. Too bad for him. No sympathy from me,
except his show was sometimes entertaining and I miss it a bit.
Real hate speech has the goal to de-humanize a subset of people.
And if you ain't human you can be shot, hung, gassed, or otherwise
disposed of. The Germans were softened up for years by anti-semitic
propagandists before the exterminations began.
Nazis, white supremicists and black Nation of Islam are
the best known American practitioners, and get short shrift here.
Some European countries have laws against what they term hate
speech - holocaust denial, for example.
We don't need that here, because the 1st Amendment says you can say
what you want. If you get out of hand that same 1st Amendment allows
others with more sense to rip you a new one. If you get people riled
enough they will riot, and then incitement laws can kick in.
Those founding fathers knew their stuff.

--Vic

Anti-environmentalist quits US fish, wildlife & parks post
 

On May 3, 1:45 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On 3 May 2007 09:34:12 -0700, wrote:





On May 3, 12:26 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:47:35 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

(hate speech)

It's pretty simple.

I don't believe it exists.

Plug the words hitler streicher speeches into your browser.
Read.
Get back to me.

--Vic

I know I can not debate on the level you all can on this, but Hugly
was on tv last night and he made a comment that I will ponder for a
while. He said, "It's not what someone calls you, it's what you answer
to". Realizing he is a commedian, I still found many of his comments
on Imus and speech, pretty fair. Then he proceeded to say "Imus
shouldn't have called them ho's, they were not ho's, but they were
some nappey headed, ugly girls on that team...". Hugley words, not
mine.

I don't know Hugley, so I can't debate on your level with that, but
that makes sense. Somebody else - Tim? - said he knows it when he
hears it. Imus isn't a hater, just an ahole. Watched his show a lot
before he got canned and what was most amazing about it was how
so many bigshots of all political stripes would come on his show and
kiss his cocaine/alcohol riddled ass. Then he shot off his mouth
against the wrong target. Too bad for him. No sympathy from me,
except his show was sometimes entertaining and I miss it a bit.
Real hate speech has the goal to de-humanize a subset of people.
And if you ain't human you can be shot, hung, gassed, or otherwise
disposed of. The Germans were softened up for years by anti-semitic
propagandists before the exterminations began.
Nazis, white supremicists and black Nation of Islam are
the best known American practitioners, and get short shrift here.
Some European countries have laws against what they term hate
speech - holocaust denial, for example.
We don't need that here, because the 1st Amendment says you can say
what you want. If you get out of hand that same 1st Amendment allows
others with more sense to rip you a new one. If you get people riled
enough they will riot, and then incitement laws can kick in.
Those founding fathers knew their stuff.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, I think it is JJ Hugley, he is a black commedian, young guy,
known on the WB network and commedy variety shows. I think the guy is
hilarious. Anyway, I was the one that said "I know it when I hear it".
I was making a wisecrack based on the observations of a SC justice on
the topic of pornography. I tend to connect things differently than
others, OCD, ADD, I don't know, I seem to connect with them all ;)