|
|
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Technically: TANSTAAFL (there aint no such thing as a free lunch) and desserts form part of lunch. At least around here they do. (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) But I don't accept that a corporation has an opinion, nor can any executive of that company have a pure opinion regarding the company. Everything, in effect, must be taken as an effort to serve the bottom line, since that's the whole purpose (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) I think sacrosanct expression is put forth as TAANSTFL, but pudding in my world model is a dessert, not a lunch. Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Me. Who's going to pay for it??? There are no free goods, you know that already, Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Na. You show ME where it's guaranteed they don't! Remember, enumeration of rights is not necessarily exhaustive. (...) How so? If they mail in their utterances and they get published, it doesn't matter where they were when they were uttered, (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) As I understand the suit, it was asserting that Nike was lying and thus the claim of "false advertising". Clearly this is central to the issue. If they are indeed stating a falsehood and not simply an opinion, then they should be slammed. If (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I think it could, in the same way 'class action' lawsuits work-- "Excuse me witness A--why did you stop buying ice cream?" "Why it causes cancer, of course!" "where did you hear that?" "From this website that explicitly said it (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Corporations often run self-serving ads. Mobil use to have a regular paid ad in the Los Angeles Times where it spun things to it's own advantage. I stopped going to Mobil stations because they got pretty thick for a while. And I think that is (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Ne. Hence the other post, which I would have foreshadowed if I'd had any planning. (...) And who doesn't advocate free pudding? Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Well you shouldn't have snipped it without comment, then. Snipping stuff around here tends to mean you agree, ne? (not always but of course...) (...) Wouldn't that be a "greater advocate of free pudding"? (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) If I get pudding out of the deal, I'm with Larry. Canada has no 1st ammendment clause, iirc, but somehow my freedom of speech doesn't seem to be limited. Do we actually need a specific clause outlining the necessity of freedom of speech, or (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Wait a minute--show me where in the Constitution it is guaranteed that corporations have free speech. I'm not talking about some nebulous, fantasy market-of-ideas, but rather the actual Constitution, since that's what's being discussed in the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) I don't buy your application of free speech in that post, though. You might as well have said "I advocate a second helping of pudding for everyone, therefore I'm a greater advocate of free speech." Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) Ahhh...hhh! NOOO...OOO! John, I like you, I really do. But as a President of the US? Ummmmmm, no. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) Eeep!! Oh wait. All we like sheep... Dave K (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) "Your attention please: is there a "John Neal" in the NG?" You might have to adjust your thinking. I don't know about you, but I work for a living (self-employed), and so if I don't do anything, I don't make any money. I'd like to hang out (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| (...) Stangl, stop scaring the children. (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Note that the cited article doesn't say what exactly the original suit is about, exactly. If Nike was lying about conditions in factories, there may well be grounds for a libel suit there if you can just find the party libeled. Or a fraudulent (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes: "...President John Neal..." Hmmm... JOHN (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) You know me, right? Therefore I am in the set of "anyone I know". And (the rest of) my post showed that I'm a bigger proponent of free speech than you are. QED. (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
