 | | Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) Let's review: In post 24440 (ie, the post-at-hand) you rattled off a litany of negative descriptors, identifying Moore as a "waste of food and total twit" who is "without shame," who "is mostly wrong about stuff," and whose "approach to his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) True, they very well might, as the law is written. But it's beside the point. 'd have more respect for them if they came out against the law instead of using it against their opponents. Just as I said I'd have more respect for Clinton if he (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: UN Gets it Right!
|
|
(...) I trust you do not mean that war crimes are constitutional? ;) (...) I'm sure many others would say Bush heading it would also be a "farce". After all, it is Bush's record on human rights which stopped him getting the ICC exemption extended. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) I think they have a case. How would a commercial promoting a movie that criticizes a political candidate differ in kind from a commercial criticizing a political candidate paid for by a political opponent? And besides, the group is only (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip)... because there's no need to repeat it, especially if it goes unanswered by Dave!(1) But, tangentially related, here's a story (URL) which some conservative group apparently wants to block (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
