On 6 Apr 2004 16:29:47 -0700 email@example.com (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote in Message id:
Hello Fred the Red Shirt,
I'm conducting an impromptu study in outrageous Usenet stupidity,
and I've chosen you to be my test subject, you lucky guy!
My question is: Why are you posting this follow-up in alt.flame,
when the person you're replying to won't even see it, you cowardly tit?
It's not as though the person you're replying to set the follow-ups out
of his subscribed group or anything. Also, why is it that your post is
entirely devoid of flame and off-topic for this newsgroup? I mean, If
you're dim-witted enough to post a reply in a group where the person
you're following up to doesn't even read, and you're not going to
entertain me with a flame, why not use alt.test? For that matter, you
might even use alt.personals where some other sad sack of wet shit much
like yourself might read it and, who knows, you just might find a mate
or something? Stranger things have happened...
While I am not really interested in joining the contest, I
have to point out one glaring factual error here. There is no lead
in a "lead" pencil. The core is graphite, with a binder (Clay of
some sort, I seem to recall...ah yes...here is a link:
http://www.officemuseum.com/pencil_history.htm ) There may have
been lead in the paint on the outside of the pencil, at one TIME,
but, not for years.
The difference between fat, alcohol and cigarettes is one of use vs
Abuse of alcohol and fat (overuse, shall we say) is bad for you;
simple _use_ of a cigarette is bad for you.
Not only that, but while you're free to speak, that doesn't include
the free use of the broadcast equipment owned by someone else. Clear
Channel owns the radio stations, they can change their mind about what
they broadcast for any reason or for no reason at all. Stern has no
say over what they choose to broadcast.
If you are using this as a segue to argue the for\against the interpretation
of the 2nd amendment. Feel free, but your point is lost on me.
"> Are you so sure it was inadvertent? "
Am I sure it was inadvertent? Absolutely! Taking the context of the
amendment, as well as the history and circumstances of the writers -
ensuring "free speech" of contemporary filth was the farthest from their
mind. They wanted folks of future generations to have the Constitutionally
protected power to speak, print, and gather against government.
Jesus - ok... If you think the Founding Fathers would condone and protect
via "Free Speech" most of what's on the radio, hehe - cripes - You win. I
can't argue with that logic.
I'm a pretty basic fellow. Pretty shallow in about every area of life. So, I
don't have the wisdom or heady ideals to argue such things... I guess for
that reason, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. So some of your stuff is
over my head.
"You have your idea of what does and doesn't qualify and so do most others.
That is precisely why the First Amendment was written as an absolute."
You say the 1st is an "absolute?" Yet you also argue, "the Supreme Court
ruled" on this 30 yrs ago. If something is an absolute, why rule or
interpret? Absolute is absolute. Right? Are you saying there should be no
question as to "Free Speech?" It's all relative, right?
But again, my point isn't morality. 1st amendment is about anti-government
speech, print, etc - or at least in intent.
If you want to add one to allow Howard Stern to say anything he wants - feel
free. Honestly, I don't care.
*And as to the "turn off the TV," or "watch your kids" arguments. That's
pretty stupid - Yea, we all get the point, and agree - with "Change the
channel," but please concede that it isn't that easy. About 3 months ago, I
was shopping for WW books - Bill Hylton's router book in fact - tucked
behind the WW books - I find an explicit book of erotic, lesbian
photography. While it didn't bother me (ex-Navy guy), I wondered "Cripes!
What if some kid found this?"
Not true. There is a "perception" that their isn't an absolute (based on
the "collective" argument and the Miller case - and that's a modern thing).
Gun control groups place all their 2nd amendment arguments in that one
basket. There is very little precedent or case law for any gun control
legislation (It exists but has not been tested up to the supreme court).
And that which is there (Emerson - at the federal appellate level) puts gun
control legislation on tenuous ground (In effect clairifying that the Miller
case may limit non military weapons (In that case a sawed of shotgun) - but
allowing anything the military would use. Including automatic weapons) -
placing the argument against gun control based on the collective rights
argument on slippery ground. Just for clarification.
So in sum. Gun legislation either tries to skirt second amendment issues or
is based on the sole supreme court case of Miller. In other words - until a
Second Amendment case is presented to the supreme court on gun control
merits - it is still an absolute right, and the well regulated milita clause
is still a predicated clause.
On 01 Apr 2004 13:03:41 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (BUB 209) wrote:
You do. <G>
Agreed, and that should be taken up with the store's management, not
the FCC. Any retailer that has Howard on in the store is a bit
lacking in the brains department, wouldn't you think?
Also agreed, along with music. In fact I was once sitting next to a
vehicle at a red light with NPR's Saturday Afternoon OPERA cranked to
the hilt! It was funny, but still annoying. Some of the localities
in my area have "Boom Box" laws restricting car stereo volume. So
far, it's just one more law that goes unenforced, right along with
speed limits, use of dealer plates, motor vehicle exhaust noise laws,
They did a great job, the fake show was very convincing. It snagged
Fox News! <G>
Another station, WPLR in New Haven, had "man on the street" reporters
interviewing motorists and truck drivers about Connecticut's "No
smoking in your car" law that they said took effect today. Of course,
there is no such law, at least not yet.
Some of the interviews were absolute classics. <G>
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.