|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
