 | | Re: Free Speech, again —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) ?? (22 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. (22 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! (22 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 (...) (22 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"? (22 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! (22 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! (22 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! (22 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. (22 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! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
