2pid will presumably never again post OT about what somebody said

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

2pid wonders if any "kook" can say what they want...

Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!out02b.usenets erver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com!
in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!hwmnpe er01.phx!
hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!
newsfe21.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "ScottW" >
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
References: . com>
. com>
om>
om> <TCeRi.
>
. com>
. com>
om>
. com>
. com> <wpURi.
>
. com>
Subject: Re: OT: It's ON Now
Lines: 34
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Message-ID: >
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:27 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.181.144.45
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newsfe21.lga 1192762769 70.181.144.45 (Thu, 18 Oct 2007
19:59:29 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:29 MST
Organization: Cox


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
message
oups.com...
> On Oct 18, 9:13 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> ooglegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > > So we can chit-chat waiting for an audio topic, or move on.
>>
>> >> > "Chit-chat" does not equal "political propaganda," 2pid.
>>
>> >> Damn...you got some weird rules. Luckily you're not in charge
>> >> and I can post what I want.
>>
>> > I know. You've avoided the question of whether or not you consider
>> > what you are doing 'right'. Do you follow rules, 2pid?
>>
>> Not yours...they change too often.
>
> Is what you are doing "right"?

and true and just and the American way in accordance
with the first amendment.

I'll make a deal with you though...since this has become
the only cause of your life you still have a chance of
succeeding at, I'll throw you a bone.
George is gonna be so jealous as his cause is hopeless.
I'll restrict all my posts to audio for all your records.
You deliver of course.
************************************************** ********

Of course, I've chosen to be charitable to 2pid and not address his
"situational ethics" and his obvious solicitation of bribery...

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 21, 1:37 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...

> > 2pid wonders if any "kook" can say what they want...
>
> > Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!out02b.usenets erver.com!
> > news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com!
> > in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!hwmnpe er01.phx!
> > hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!
> > newsfe21.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> > From: "ScottW" >
> > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> > References: . com>
> > . com>
> > om>
> > om> <TCeRi.
> > >
> > . com>
> > . com>
> > om>
> > . com>
> > . com> <wpURi.
> > >
> > . com>
> > Subject: Re: OT: It's ON Now
> > Lines: 34
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> > Message-ID: >
> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:27 -0700
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.181.144.45
> > X-Complaints-To:
> > X-Trace: newsfe21.lga 1192762769 70.181.144.45 (Thu, 18 Oct 2007
> > 19:59:29 MST)
> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:29 MST
> > Organization: Cox
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > message
> oups.com...
> >> On Oct 18, 9:13 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >>> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >>> >> > > So we can chit-chat waiting for an audio topic, or move on.
>
> >>> >> > "Chit-chat" does not equal "political propaganda," 2pid.
>
> >>> >> Damn...you got some weird rules. Luckily you're not in charge
> >>> >> and I can post what I want.
>
> >>> > I know. You've avoided the question of whether or not you consider
> >>> > what you are doing 'right'. Do you follow rules, 2pid?
>
> >>> Not yours...they change too often.
>
> >> Is what you are doing "right"?
>
> > and true and just and the American way in accordance
> > with the first amendment.
>
> > I'll make a deal with you though...since this has become
> > the only cause of your life you still have a chance of
> > succeeding at, I'll throw you a bone.
> > George is gonna be so jealous as his cause is hopeless.
> > I'll restrict all my posts to audio for all your records.
> > You deliver of course.
> > ************************************************** ********
>
> > Of course, I've chosen to be charitable to 2pid and not address his
> > "situational ethics" and his obvious solicitation of bribery...
>
> Does the first amendment require me to speak?

So who wants to require you to speak?

> Does it prohibit my acceptance of compensation as a private citizen
> to keep quiet when within the law?

Rationalization of poor ethical behavior noted.

> AFAIK...I'm only required to speak out in witness of a crime and
> much as I think your positions are foolish and often unethical.
> They aren't criminal.

Why does this argument seem like it could come from good old Arns?
LOL!

> Freedom is a 2-way street. I know you hate that.

LMAO!

Um, 2pid? That was the point, you imbecile.

It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium. Yet
it was you who said what you did above a day or two earlier. So I
agree with you, 2pid, that any kook, including you, can say whatever
you want, as loudly as you want, anywhere you want, whether it's
appropriate or not. That doesn't make it "right", it just means that
anybody gets to. Yet you whine that some kook said something you don't
like. And, (LOL!) you claim to be ethical.

Therefore, you either walk the walk and quit hypocritically whining
about what somebody said, as all are afforded the same rights as you,
or you refute your right to free speech. If one gets shut down, we all
do. You do not get to have it both ways.

(Just to be clear, 2pid, I would never deny you your right to free
speech. You can say whatever you want, no matter how stupid it is. I
do, however, question the appropriateness of your selection of forum.
You have clearly stated that does not matter to you. Coming in against
the group charter (and the legions of people who told you that you are
a drooling moron and who have asked you to take it elsewhere), is what
is "right and true and just and the American Way". Therefore, in your
world view, it is entirely OK for someone to stand up in church and
bleat about the benefits of devil worship, or to announce all the new
White Supremacy theories, or to incite Muslims to jihad, or even to
(gasp!) question Iraq policy.)

Have you looked up the word "hypocrite" yet? I didn't think so.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 1:37 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> > 2pid wonders if any "kook" can say what they want...
>
> >> > Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!out02b.usenets erver.com!
> >> > news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com!
> >> > in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!hwmnpe er01.phx!
> >> > hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!
> >> > newsfe21.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> >> > From: "ScottW" >
> >> > Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> >> > References: . com>
> >> > . com>
> >> > om>
> >> > om> <TCeRi.
> >> > >
> >> > . com>
> >> > . com>
> >> > om>
> >> > . com>
> >> > . com> <wpURi.
> >> > >
> >> > . com>
> >> > Subject: Re: OT: It's ON Now
> >> > Lines: 34
> >> > X-Priority: 3
> >> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> >> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> >> > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> >> > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> >> > Message-ID: >
> >> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:27 -0700
> >> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.181.144.45
> >> > X-Complaints-To:
> >> > X-Trace: newsfe21.lga 1192762769 70.181.144.45 (Thu, 18 Oct 2007
> >> > 19:59:29 MST)
> >> > NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:59:29 MST
> >> > Organization: Cox
>
> >> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> > message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >> On Oct 18, 9:13 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >>> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> >>> >> > > So we can chit-chat waiting for an audio topic, or move on.
>
> >> >>> >> > "Chit-chat" does not equal "political propaganda," 2pid.
>
> >> >>> >> Damn...you got some weird rules. Luckily you're not in charge
> >> >>> >> and I can post what I want.
>
> >> >>> > I know. You've avoided the question of whether or not you consider
> >> >>> > what you are doing 'right'. Do you follow rules, 2pid?
>
> >> >>> Not yours...they change too often.
>
> >> >> Is what you are doing "right"?
>
> >> > and true and just and the American way in accordance
> >> > with the first amendment.
>
> >> > I'll make a deal with you though...since this has become
> >> > the only cause of your life you still have a chance of
> >> > succeeding at, I'll throw you a bone.
> >> > George is gonna be so jealous as his cause is hopeless.
> >> > I'll restrict all my posts to audio for all your records.
> >> > You deliver of course.
> >> > ************************************************** ********
>
> >> > Of course, I've chosen to be charitable to 2pid and not address his
> >> > "situational ethics" and his obvious solicitation of bribery...
>
> >> Does the first amendment require me to speak?
>
> > So who wants to require you to speak?
>
> >> Does it prohibit my acceptance of compensation as a private citizen
> >> to keep quiet when within the law?
>
> > Rationalization of poor ethical behavior noted.
>
> >> AFAIK...I'm only required to speak out in witness of a crime and
> >> much as I think your positions are foolish and often unethical.
> >> They aren't criminal.
>
> > Why does this argument seem like it could come from good old Arns?
> > LOL!
>
> >> Freedom is a 2-way street. I know you hate that.
>
> > LMAO!
>
> > Um, 2pid? That was the point, you imbecile.
>
> > It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium.
>
> Freedom of speech does not guarantee a podium you buffoon.

It guarantees that when you get a podium, you can say whatever you
want.

So what you were really mad about was that this speaker got a podium.
What the speaker said at the podium did not matter. Right?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 7:16 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> > It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium.
>
> >> Freedom of speech does not guarantee a podium you buffoon.
>
> > It guarantees that when you get a podium, you can say whatever you
> > want.
>
> Tell that to Jim GilChrist.
>
>
>
> > So what you were really mad about was that this speaker got a podium.
>
> Nope..that he keeps getting one to deliver hate speech.

Another read for you: "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg" by Mark
Twain.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 7:16 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> ooglegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > It was you who whined about any kook's ability to have a podium.
>
> >> >> Freedom of speech does not guarantee a podium you buffoon.
>
> >> > It guarantees that when you get a podium, you can say whatever you
> >> > want.
>
> >> Tell that to Jim GilChrist.
>
> Failure to address the point noted.

Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
apparently.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in

> > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:

> > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> > apparently.
>
> You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.

There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).

Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent.

The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were
obstructed.

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> > > apparently.
>
> > You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent.
>
> The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were
> obstructed.

Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience?
I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation.
couldn't have been handled better.
Congrats to him, he understands free speech,
and its limits.
one of the few libs that are both smart and funny.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> > apparently.
>
> >> You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> > Both have a right to speak.
>
> Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from
> speaking, an invited guest of the University.

That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak.

> The protestors
> have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well.

The fault lies with the university's poor security.

> They can protest outside the event but they have no right
> to disrupt the event.

As I said, security was the actual issue.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> oglegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >>
> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> >> > apparently.
> >>
> >> >> You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
> >>
> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
> >>
> >> > Both have a right to speak.
> >>
> >> Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from
> >> speaking, an invited guest of the University.
> >
> > That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak.
> >
> >> The protestors
> >> have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well.
> >
> > The fault lies with the university's poor security.
> >
> >> They can protest outside the event but they have no right
> >> to disrupt the event.
> >
> > As I said, security was the actual issue.
>
> The disruptors get a pass....typical.
> They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack
> of parental supervision.

Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for
not providing
adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
not have been allowed to run rampant."?

>
> So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world
> downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security.

The downloader's what?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> oglegroups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> >> >> > apparently.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
> >> >>
> >> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also
> >> >> > should
> >> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
> >> >>
> >> >> > Both have a right to speak.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from
> >> >> speaking, an invited guest of the University.
> >> >
> >> > That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak.
> >> >
> >> >> The protestors
> >> >> have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well.
> >> >
> >> > The fault lies with the university's poor security.
> >> >
> >> >> They can protest outside the event but they have no right
> >> >> to disrupt the event.
> >> >
> >> > As I said, security was the actual issue.
> >>
> >> The disruptors get a pass....typical.
> >> They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack
> >> of parental supervision.
> >
> > Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for
> > not providing
> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> > not have been allowed to run rampant."?
>
> Seems to touch security twice... as having true responsibility for
> not allowing rampant...
>
> Sorry...the culprits bear full responsibility...the idea that lack of
> security
> bears any fault for denial of free speech is absurd.
> If there is respect for free speech, security is not required.
>
> There was an anti-immigration meeting was planned in Carlsbad at a public
> meeting room...a town hall room attached to the Library.
> It's available for social, political and other public events.
> Immigration activists announced plans to disrupt the meeting.
> Carlsbad tried to cancel the event claiming security costs were too
> high, then tried to pass the costs on to event organizers.
> A judge had to intervene and explain to Carlsbad how they can't
> do that.
>
> >
> >>
> >> So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world
> >> downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security.
> >
> > The downloader's what?
>
> sigh...
> "must also get a pass for lack of security."

Nevermind. It's a grammar thing...

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > >> downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security.

> > > The downloader's what?

> > "must also get a pass for lack of security."

> Nevermind. It's a grammar thing...

Grammar is elitist, you snob.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jenn said:
> >
> >> > >> downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security.
> >
> >> > > The downloader's what?
> >
> >> > "must also get a pass for lack of security."
> >
> >> Nevermind. It's a grammar thing...
> >
> > Grammar is elitist, you snob.
>
> and even worse....it's boring.
>
> ScottW

Like spelling?

[George M. Middius]

Yapper stoops to self-ridicule.

> >> > >> downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security.

> >> > > The downloader's what?

> >> > "must also get a pass for lack of security."

> >> Nevermind. It's a grammar thing...

> > Grammar is elitist, you snob.

> and even worse....it's boring.

As usual, you're totally oblivious to how ridiculous you are. I'd hate to
be trapped in Moronland with you, Witless. Nearly everything must mystify
you totally.

[George M. Middius]

A gruesome revelation wafts up from the ashes of the Great SoCal Fire of '07.

> >> > Grammar is elitist, you snob.

> >> and even worse....it's boring.

> > Like spelling?

> actually I learned something about ceramics
> I didn't know....more than I ever learned from George.

Why were you trying to learn something from me, you nitwit? I have no interest
in teaching you anything, especially basic language skills that educated
people are supposed to learn by the age of 12.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper dinks along in the gutter.

> > As usual, you're totally oblivious to how ridiculous you are. I'd hate to
> > be trapped in Moronland with you, Witless. Nearly everything must mystify
> > you totally.

> You don't.

Maybe you should sharpen your teeth, Scooter. I can barely feel you nipping at
my heels.

[George M. Middius]

Scottie, you're so addled you can't even follow your own "discussion".

> >> more than I ever learned from George.

> > Why were you trying to learn something from me, you nitwit?

> I'm not.

Should we be worried? Your hazy grasp on reality seems to be slipping. Are you
sure you checked out of your firebox house? Maybe you should go to the
hospital and ask them to check for smoke damage in your "brain".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 10:21 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> >> > apparently.
>
> >> >> You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> >> > Both have a right to speak.
>
> >> Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from
> >> speaking, an invited guest of the University.
>
> > That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak.
>
> >> The protestors
> >> have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well.
>
> > The fault lies with the university's poor security.
>
> >> They can protest outside the event but they have no right
> >> to disrupt the event.
>
> > As I said, security was the actual issue.
>
> The disruptors get a pass....typical.
> They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack
> of parental supervision.
>
> So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world
> downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security.

There is but one conclusion I can draw here, 2pid: you're an imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 11:26 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> >> >> > apparently.
>
> >> >> >> You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> >> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> >> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> >> >> > Both have a right to speak.
>
> >> >> Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from
> >> >> speaking, an invited guest of the University.
>
> >> > That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak.
>
> >> >> The protestors
> >> >> have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well.
>
> >> > The fault lies with the university's poor security.
>
> >> >> They can protest outside the event but they have no right
> >> >> to disrupt the event.
>
> >> > As I said, security was the actual issue.
>
> >> The disruptors get a pass....typical.
> >> They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack
> >> of parental supervision.
>
> > Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for
> > not providing
> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> > not have been allowed to run rampant."?
>
> Seems to touch security twice... as having true responsibility for
> not allowing rampant...

It does touch security twice, 2pid. Most people could have predicted
that when you have the head of a vigilante group appear, there may be
problems. It looks to me like there was not enough security.

> Sorry...the culprits bear full responsibility...the idea that lack of security
> bears any fault for denial of free speech is absurd.
> If there is respect for free speech, security is not required.

Duh.

Tell that to the American Nazi Party, 2pid. From what I've seen, there
is extra security wherever they appear in public. Somebody must
foresee potential trouble. Bratzi, what's your experience in this
regard?

> There was an anti-immigration meeting was planned in Carlsbad at a public
> meeting room...a town hall room attached to the Library.
> It's available for social, political and other public events.
> Immigration activists announced plans to disrupt the meeting.
> Carlsbad tried to cancel the event claiming security costs were too
> high, then tried to pass the costs on to event organizers.
> A judge had to intervene and explain to Carlsbad how they can't
> do that.

So damn. As a society, we have to pay for the freedoms we enjoy. I'm
shocked. Like, totally.

You didn't finish the story, 2pid. What happened? Did Carlsbad have to
furnish the extra security? Was the meeting disrupted? Were people
allowed to speak?

> >> So in your twisted lack of self responsibility world
> >> downloader's must also get a pass for lack of security.
>
> > The downloader's what?

He's confusing the RIAA thread with this one. But 2pid cannot see his
part in making RAO what it is today, so we know 2pid's "personal
responsibility" schtick is bull****.

> sigh...
> "must also get a pass for lack of security."

No, just like the Minuteman episode, both are subject to arrest. It
appears, though, that there wasn't adequate security to perform that
function re: the disruptive element at Columbia.

Why do bars have bouncers, 2pid? Shouldn't we all be allowed to drink
in peace? And WTF do we need police for?

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > > > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> > > > apparently.
>
> > > You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> > Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent.
>
> > The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were
> > obstructed.
>
> Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience?

No, recently?

> I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation.
> couldn't have been handled better.

I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He
stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes.
He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..."

You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper...

> one of the few libs that are both smart and funny.

Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 4:42 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > There is but one conclusion I can draw here, 2pid: you're an imbecile.
>
> and you're toast. Lol :).

Why? Do you feel as though you've 'won'? LMAO!

I'd love to see your MMPI results, 2pid.

[Clyde Slick]

>
> Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
> think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another.

i already know you can't think

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
> > think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another.
>
> i already know you can't think

That's pretty harsh, Clyde.

If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that
you've trashed the place?

Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative
comedians. You can't include bushie, because he's not supposed to make
his living from comedy. (Ditto ;-) Rush or Hannity or Hewitt.)
Besides, we can all agree that bushie isn't very smart.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 00:40, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
> > > think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another.
>
> > i already know you can't think
>
> That's pretty harsh, Clyde.
>
> If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that
> you've trashed the place?
>
> Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative
> comedians. You can't include bushie, because he's not supposed to make
> his living from comedy. (Ditto ;-) Rush or Hannity or Hewitt.)
> Besides, we can all agree that bushie isn't very smart.

don't tell me not to include rush.
i consider myself an apostrophe head, since i agree with him about
half the time.

bush is a **** poor communicator.
he is smart enough to handle a jet without crashing it.
certainly not funny.

Hannity is neither smart nor funny

i don't know hewitt that well

anyway, we should not include the funny pro comedians
with political bents

say, Miller, Alda, Farell, Gregory, Clay, Bruce

and certainly not the unfunny pro comedians
O'Donnell, Colbert, Franken

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 9:39 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in glegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> > > > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > > > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> > > > apparently.
>
> >> > > You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> >> > Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent.
>
> >> > The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were
> >> > obstructed.
>
> >> Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience?
>
> > No, recently?
>
> >> I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation.
> >> couldn't have been handled better.
>
> > I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He
> > stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes.
> > He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..."
>
> > You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper...
>
> I've never heard Haig suggest only military have a say...
> in fact...you're the only ex-military (supposedly anyway)
> I've ever heard suggest that.

But I never have, 2pid. You're making things up... again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 5:01 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...

> > On Oct 23, 11:26 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:32 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> >> >> >> > apparently.
>
> >> >> >> >> You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> >> >> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> >> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also
> >> >> >> > should
> >> >> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> >> >> >> > Both have a right to speak.
>
> >> >> >> Not really, the protestors have no right to prevent Gilchrist from
> >> >> >> speaking, an invited guest of the University.
>
> >> >> > That's not what I said. Both do indeed have a right to speak.
>
> >> >> >> The protestors
> >> >> >> have no right to equal accomodation by the university as well.
>
> >> >> > The fault lies with the university's poor security.
>
> >> >> >> They can protest outside the event but they have no right
> >> >> >> to disrupt the event.
>
> >> >> > As I said, security was the actual issue.
>
> >> >> The disruptors get a pass....typical.
> >> >> They can't be accountable for their actions..it was lack
> >> >> of parental supervision.
>
> >> > Didn't he write, "There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for
> >> > not providing
> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant."?
>
> >> Seems to touch security twice... as having true responsibility for
> >> not allowing rampant...
>
> > It does touch security twice, 2pid. Most people could have predicted
> > that when you have the head of a vigilante group appear,
>
> What's it like to have to take the side of Bush on this one?
> He's an idiot of course...and wrong. So are you.

Do explain.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> > Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
> >> > think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another.
>
> >> i already know you can't think
>
> > That's pretty harsh, Clyde.
>
> > If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that
> > you've trashed the place?
>
> > Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative
> > comedians.
>
> Jackie Mason

Is he still alive?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 1:56 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 12:17 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 23, 11:09 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> >> > Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
> >> >> > think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another.
>
> >> >> i already know you can't think
>
> >> > That's pretty harsh, Clyde.
>
> >> > If you call me "Phoebe" I may have to leave. Are you happy now that
> >> > you've trashed the place?
>
> >> > Seriously, aside from Miller, name some "smart" conservative
> >> > comedians.
>
> >> Jackie Mason
>
> > Is he still alive?
>
> He's on Ingraham quite often.

Does he look like an anteater in real life?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 3:16 pm, " >
wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in glegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> > > > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > > > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> > > > apparently.
>
> >> > > You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> >> > Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent.
>
> >> > The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were
> >> > obstructed.
>
> >> Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience?
>
> > No, recently?
>
> >> I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation.
> >> couldn't have been handled better.
>
> > I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He
> > stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes.
> > He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..."
>
> > You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper...
>
> >> one of the few libs that are both smart and funny.
>
> > Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
> > think Dennis Miller is a drag. I can't think of another.
>
> When did Dennis Miller become a Conservative?

"In recent years, Miller has become known for his conservative
libertarian opinions, emphasizing an aggressive stance on U.S.
military action and campaigning for Republican presidential candidates
(George W. Bush, Rudolph Guiliani).[2] He is a regular political
commentator on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Miller

I saw him on HBO a few months ago. His 'routine' sounded like it was
written by Karl Rove. There was an almost nervous laughter from the
audience. It seemed to me like they thought they were supposed to
laugh, but obviously not too many found what he was saying very funny.

How have you been? You don't come around these parts very often.

[Jenn]

On Oct 26, 1:16 pm, " >
wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in glegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 23, 12:42 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >> On 23 Oct, 01:27, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > On Oct 23, 12:20 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> > > > On Oct 23, 12:01 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> > > > Life is not fair, 2pid. Not all hate speech is received the same,
> >> > > > apparently.
>
> >> > > You mean not everyones right to free speech is respected.
>
> >> > There were two culprits at work here: the venue, for not providing
> >> > adequate security, and the behavior of the protesters, who also should
> >> > not have been allowed to run rampant (see above).
>
> >> > Both have a right to speak. Neither has a right to be violent.
>
> >> > The recourse for Gilchrist is to sue if feels his civil rights were
> >> > obstructed.
>
> >> Did you see the tape of the disruption in the Bill Maher audience?
>
> > No, recently?
>
> >> I thought Bill appropriately handled the situation.
> >> couldn't have been handled better.
>
> > I saw General Alexander Haig speak once. He was getting heckled. He
> > stood away from the podium and let them heckle for about five minutes.
> > He said, "I've fought in three wars to make sure you can do that..."
>
> > You could hear a pin drop after that. Damned Starship Trooper...
>
> >> one of the few libs that are both smart and funny.
>
> > Um, compared to how many "funny" ;-) "smart" ;-) conservatives? I
> > thinkDennisMilleris a drag. I can't think of another.
>
> When didDennisMillerbecome aConservative?

Since the lobotomy.

;-)