 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
(...) I honestly don't know! Must be some other forum I hung out on or something. Or maybe I made it up? Who can say. I use it to mean "yes?" (as in, "do you agree?") and only at the end of sentences. Anyone recognise it? Google wasn't much help. No (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
(...) Most importantly, you haven't told me where "ne" came from. Very clever omission--what are you hiding? (...) I've wondered about something like that. I believe the Turing test hypothesizes that a computer convincingly able to mimic human (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) Uh, I meant the "royal we";-) (...) Definitely political (adversaries). (...) I wonder how the second place documentary maker looked in a swimsuit;-D JOHN (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) We? No. I'd be laughing with him. So, do you reckon this is coming from his political targets or his rival documentary makers? It's certainly not coming from the Academy. What would be interesting is what the 'second placed' documentary maker (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) He is so far removed from reality that he probably would. I believe that a normal person, having some semblance of dignity and pride, would be horrified were it to happen to them. But the fact would remain that we would be laughing *at* him, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
Oh heck, I snipped most of it without regard to whether I agreed with it or not... (...) No they aren't. At least not always. AM I THAT predictable? I'm not a number (in a platform plank somewhere), I'm a free man! But maybe I could make an (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) That's the downside of this, yes, but preventing future budding Moores from winning might be worth the cost. (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) ROFL! Humiliation? Don't you think he'd enjoy the publicity? Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
The consequences for Tim Robbins' recent unpopular ramblings are miniscule compared to the potential humiliation MM faces if the Academy is convinced that his "documentary" Bowling For Columbine is in fact not eligible under its own rules for (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
|
(...) Hey Tom, what if I made you Transportation Secretary? You could push a federally funded 2 lane hiway down the Left Coast (or east coast as it will be for you soon) with a minimum speed limit of 100 mph...;-) Even if you decline, I use this (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Sean...
|
|
(...) For some european news as well (not that I expect anyone but Kevin Cheng to care... ;-) www.uefa.com UEFA Champins League quarterfinals, 2nd round: Barcelona 1, JUVENTUS 2 (agg. 2-3) Valencia 2, INTER 1 (agg. 2-2) Man. United 4, REAL MADRID 3 (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
(...) Wow--both my spelling and acronymism have been off lately. Too much pudding (which are part of dinner, not lunch, around here). Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: *** For the record, I've snipped parts with which I disagree but which I recognize will not yield to discussion by either of us--you're as convinced of your correctness as I am of mine, and never (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
(...) Suppose you were right... So what? This case isn't about free speech the way I read it. It's about false advertising. If it would be wrong for you as a person to deny you owned a sweatshop when actually you did, it owuld be wrong for Nike to (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Tim Robbins "Countering a Wave of Hate"
|
|
(...) The difference being that he signed a contract that included (as apparently many major league contracts do) a clause about his conduct off the field as a representative of the Braves. I'd have to go digging in news archives to get the exact (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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. (22 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 (...) (22 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! (22 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! (22 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, (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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! (22 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"? (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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! (22 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 (22 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 (22 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 (...) (22 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. (22 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 (...) (22 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 (22 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. (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
|
(...) Ah, but my scorn is targetted to a few specific people, not the whole population ;-) (...) No worries, really. As I'm sure you've seen me post before, I'd be much more fearful of President John Neal than President Frog ;-) -- Tom Stangl (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The U.S. Economy: The Thousand Yard Stare Through the Years
|
|
(...) How could anti-american agendas like the Patriot Acts I & II be anything but premeditated? I mean, really -- even McCarthyism was a planned thing -- it stank to high heaven but it was someone's specific agenda. Just like the Inquisition and (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
(...) ?? (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
(...) First, I'd say there's a difference b/w a corporation and a gov't institution--separation of church and state is gov't, not corporation. Dubya 'talking God' is irrelevant. Dubya supporting keeping "Under God" in the PoA is wrong. I also thing (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
|
(...) Well, maybe not. (...) They don't themselves have to be citizens for their actions to be protected. Engage in this thought experiment with me. Suppose I take out an ad in the paper that says "Hop Frog sometimes posts mean things in (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
