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. :)

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

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?

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?

wrote:
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?


I'd leave off the "don't deserve to live" part. :}

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.