Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:51:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
487 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Oh heck, I snipped most of it without regard to whether I agreed with it or
> not...
Most importantly, you haven't told me where "ne" came from. Very clever
omission--what are you hiding?
> But maybe I could make an autonomous machine, which, while regrettably not
> supplying pudding, could post stuff for me?
I've wondered about something like that. I believe the Turing test
hypothesizes that a computer convincingly able to mimic human communication
would qualify as an artificial intelligence. Maybe the machine you're positing
would qualify as an Artificial Larry.
> Maybe I'm an enemy combatant?
Shhh! Brother Ashcroft may be listening!
> > > ++Lar (no pudding for you!)
> >
> > See my LUGNET page--I've had enough pudding, thanks.
>
> Apparently so... 7 pounds! Ye gads. Why? Dave! Why?
I was young, okay? I needed the money. It was a creamy, synthetic-beige
time of my life that I'd rather not revisit.
> Nike stands accused of lying in a certain way (according to the summaries of
> the case provided here in this thread) about their actions, and further in a
> way that (while it may not exactly be fraud or libel in a strict definition
> although I could argue the point) is intended to deceive. It's false
> advertising.
>
> If Nike were a real person would this be actionable? I think so. False
> advertising is actionable, ne?
There you go again with the ne stuff. But I agree with this part.
> You'll not see ME arguing that corporations should get WIDER protection than
> people do. I think (at least libertarian corporations since they deny
> limited liability) they're the same. You think it's less.
This was a point of divergence, since you were working under a libertarian
model, while I was aiming at the current state of things. Given your premiss
(of a libertarian society) the way you've phrased it works for me.
> Since the Supremes always rule as narrowly (on questions) as they possibly
> can, I predict this (false adverts not protected) is how they will find,
> since there is no precedent for corporate speech being more protected,
> *without* ruling on the wider question of whether corporate speech is more
> or less protected than corporeal speech. (and thus disappointing those who
> are interested in the wider question of wider vs. narrower protection of
> corporate speech)
>
> What do you think?
I think that's a very sound prediction.
> If you agree, we can put this to bed, happily settled.
>
> Then we can get back to sparring about the rights of corps in the larger
> case if you want, knowing that we are back on the abstract and we have
> settled the concrete all neatly. (with liberty and pudding for all!)
Ne, I've gotten to the essence of it, for me. Case [of pudding] closed.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
