 | | Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (URL) I am as big a proponent of free speech as anyone I know, but I don't accept that corporations are citizens protected under the first amendment. Ditto any corporate executive or agent speaking on behalf of the corporation; the speech of *the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) ?? (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: Free Speech, again —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Wow--both my spelling and acronymism have been off lately. Too much pudding (which are part of dinner, not lunch, around here). Dave! (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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: Free Speech, again —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) <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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Doh! How about the simple "ne c'est pas?" in the now-forbidden language? Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Urp! Maybe. Try not to let "brother"(1) Ashcroft know about that, OK? I'm on enough lists as it is. 1 - you used capitalization as if to imply he were a monk, I suppose. I use quotes as if to imply I'm not convinced he's the same species as (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Actually the Japanese connection makes more sense because if you make a statement and then append the "ne" it does mean "don't you agree?" or "isn't it?" But I wouldn't have associated it with the Lar "ne" because I always read that with an (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Must be from Anime or Manga then. Thanks for that, Mags... whew, that's all settled. (I'm gonna go with her explanation, Dave! Sorry about that, but she's smarter than you, Dave!... you're allegedly not as smart as Tim Robbins, at least (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yeah, but she's got nothing on me in the pudding-eating category. Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Probably. Appending "ne" or "neh" as I've always seen it spelled is from the Japanese. I know I picked it up from James Clavell in years gone by, but Anime/Manga has certainly re-inforced it. That's how language grows, neh? (That's how (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) Well, us Canadians have been doing that for years, eh [1] Dave K 1- pronounced 'ay'--hearkens back into Canadian obscurity, but most pronounced during the McKenzie Era, in which two Canadian Heros--Bob and Doug popularized the (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Here in Minnesnoowda, we use an inflection of the voice at the end of a statement such as "That's how language grows" which in essence implies "Are you with me?" I never noticed how predominant it was until I moved away to Arizona for 7 years (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Heh. Nope. But I didn't realize until I left Canada and came back how much we really do say "eh" up here, eh? James (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Come to think of it, it may be more of a Norwegian thing... (...) You betcha. JOHN (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Actually, the french expression is "n'est-ce pas?". Sorry, I didn't want to become a grammar cop... :-/ Pedro (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Go for it! My ignorance of French grammar/spelling borders on the absolute. I was just trying to recall what I remember reading in Alpha Flight comic books 20 years ago.... Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Still got 'em somewhere in the garage. Worthless, alas, while my Albedos went for something like $1000. And yes, my Mom made me throw out my X-Men and Avengers #1s (got 'em on the same day as I recall). -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Gosh, all you people should read James Clavell's Shogun. You'll get "ne"'d to death. -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) It may be a brazilian contraction of "não é?", "né?" (without the accent, which is not standard in many brazilian keyboards). It translates to "isn't it?" in English. But really, I'm guessing here... HTH (somehow!), Pedro (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Ne or Ni [monty python] —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Dave, you must have heard of The Knights Who Say 'Ne'? Or was it 'Ni'? ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Ne or Ni [monty python] —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I've always thought it was "Nee"! Fredrik (21 years ago, 25-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Ne or Ni [monty python] —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Sorry to bring up an old thread (dons flame-resistant suit), but I've always thought it was 'ni.' But maybe that's just mi. I'd think 'nee' would be said 'nay.' At least in some countries. ekki ekki f'tang zwoop-boing bbmmbrwow ni -Tim (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Ne or Ni [monty python] —Adrian Drake
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I decided to go straight to the source. A survey of numerous online sources shows a universal spelling of "ni". Now, I know to take what the intarweb says with a grain of salt, but 8 different websites can't all be lying, can they? Maybe they (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Ne or Ni [monty python] —Chris Osborn
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) The sound file that NeXT used to ship stock with NeXTSTEP was named "Ni.snd" (21 years ago, 24-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) And now Larry's corrpupting folks from all over the world, ne? (URL) K (21 years ago, 29-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Free Speech, again —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
