Not without compensation I won't
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
groups.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 he 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 he 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.
|