>It seems good Ol' Uncle Dave is once again trying to savage anyone that
>dares to disagree with him.  It seems Ben, Kevin and Bill are making too
>strong a case.  So here we Dave's attempt to fool you into thinking they're
>some sort of monsters, violent ones no less.
>
>Anyone who works with Hemenway or Kearney should be aware that these people
>are nothing less than monsters, who will stoop to any level to get their
/me coughs... I'm part of the Monster club. They call me... Hemenway! <g>
--
Morbus Iff ( i assault your sensibilities! )
Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
Tech: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 - articles and weblog
icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus

No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	      REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT,
	      USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA,X_ACCEPT_LANG
	version=2.50-cvs

Chuck Murcko wrote:
> Heh, ten years ago saying the exact same words was most definitely not
> "parroting the party line".
>
> It was even less so thirty years ago. My story remains the same, take
> it or leave it. I've said the same words to white supremacists as to
> suburban leftist punks as to homeys as to French Irish, etc. etc.:
>
> I don't have to agree with anything you say. I *am* obligated to
> defend to the death your right to say it. I don't give a rat's ass
> where you say it, even in France. I don't care where the political
> pendulum has swung currently.
>
> Chuck
I had to laugh at Rumsfield yesterday - when he was heckled by
protestors, he said something like "They couldn't do that in Iraq."
Meanwhile, from what I could tell, the protestors were being arrested.
Owen

No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST
	version=2.50-cvs

No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0
	tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,MISSING_HEADERS,
	      NO_REAL_NAME
	version=2.50-cvs

In a message dated 9/19/2002 7:46:37 AM, chuck@topsail.org writes:
>That means *you* can't say anything may not be FoRKed or printed or
>whatever. You have the choice to ignore it
That's not what the First Amendment says at all. It says that Congress cannot
say what can't be FoRKed. FoRK can establish any rules it wants. Similarly,
The New York Times gets to choose what news IT thinks is "fit to print." If
the Times chose not to print anything about, say, Rosie O'Donnell, it would
be exercising its First Amendment rights, just as much as it would be if it
chose to print something Rosie O'Donnell doesn't like. The necessary
corollary of the freedom to say/publish what one wants is the freedom to
refuse to publish or say what one doesn't like. The alternative is a
state-controlled press that reprints government press releases and calls them
news.
The question of what is or is not FoRKed is (except for libel or other
specific exceptions) not a matter of law, but a matter of what the
"publisher" (if any) decides or the "community" (if any) negotiates or does
as a matter of custom.
For my part, I'd rather people didn't use FoRK as a place in which to dump an
expression of their political beliefs.
Tom