3rd circuit court says courthouse commandments can stay
Brian Westley
constitutional over time:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6175978.htm
A federal appeals court this morning ruled that the 83-year-old bronze
plaque of the Ten Commandments may remain on the wall of the historic
Chester County Courthouse.
In a decision likely to likely to again confront the Supreme Court with
a demand to define the boundary separating religion and government, a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
quibbler
wes...@visi.com says...
<snip>
> a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
> ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
> the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
> remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
> Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
Yeah, right. 83-years is not a particularly long amount of time. In any
event, they can put the plaque in a museum, not in the modern court
house. Slavery is even older than 83 years. I guess that means it's
constitutional as well, according to the appeals court logic.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
John Hattan
I wonder if they would apply the same rule towards "whites only" signs
on water fountains. After all, those are old too.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Brian Westley
>>Apparently old constitutional violations somehow become
>>constitutional over time:
>>
>>http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6175978.htm
>>
>>A federal appeals court this morning ruled that the 83-year-old bronze
>>plaque of the Ten Commandments may remain on the wall of the historic
>>Chester County Courthouse.
>>
>>In a decision likely to likely to again confront the Supreme Court with
>>a demand to define the boundary separating religion and government, a
>>three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
>>ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
>>the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
>>remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
>>Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
>I wonder if they would apply the same rule towards "whites only" signs
>on water fountains. After all, those are old too.
It IS the 1950s again, you know.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/states/texas/5373029.htm
March 12, 2003
'Whites Only' signs win reprieve
By Mary Mckee
Star-Telegram Dallas Bureau
DALLAS - Fading "Whites Only" signs on water fountains at the county
records building will be uncovered and marked with plaques explaining
their historical significance, Dallas County commissioners decided
Tuesday.
The 4-1 vote in favor of preserving the signs outraged African-American
representatives, who vowed to continue to fight for removal and possibly
take legal action. The signs have been covered by metal backsplashes
since they were discovered.
...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
> Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Apparently old constitutional violations somehow become
>>constitutional over time:
>>
>>http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6175978.htm
>>
>>A federal appeals court this morning ruled that the 83-year-old bronze
>>plaque of the Ten Commandments may remain on the wall of the historic
>>Chester County Courthouse.
>>
>>In a decision likely to likely to again confront the Supreme Court with
>>a demand to define the boundary separating religion and government, a
>>three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
>>ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
>>the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
>>remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
>>Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
>
>
> I wonder if they would apply the same rule towards "whites only" signs
> on water fountains. After all, those are old too.
>
There's that decision in Dallas, where they're going to put historical
plaques up with the old "whites only" signs that were exposed when they
took off the splashguards on some water fountains.
I don't see why that should be a problem.
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
Fred Stone
I supposed you'd rather they just whitewash them?
Brian Westley
I'd rather they go to a museum where they belong.
If judge Moore loses and has to remove his ten commandments
monument, can he leave it there by just adding a sign that
explains all the court fights he went through?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
Many public buildings have displays of historical artifacts.
> If judge Moore loses and has to remove his ten commandments
> monument, can he leave it there by just adding a sign that
> explains all the court fights he went through?
Moore would be in violation of a court order. That's not the case in Dallas.
Brian Westley
So do museums. What's wrong with them?
>> If judge Moore loses and has to remove his ten commandments
>> monument, can he leave it there by just adding a sign that
>> explains all the court fights he went through?
>Moore would be in violation of a court order.
The county was in violation of the 1964 civil rights act.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
quibbler
wes...@visi.com says...
> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> writes:
> >Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> >>Apparently old constitutional violations somehow become
> >>constitutional over time:
> >>
> >>http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6175978.htm
> >>
> >>A federal appeals court this morning ruled that the 83-year-old bronze
> >>plaque of the Ten Commandments may remain on the wall of the historic
> >>Chester County Courthouse.
> >>
> >>In a decision likely to likely to again confront the Supreme Court with
> >>a demand to define the boundary separating religion and government, a
> >>three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
> >>ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
> >>the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
> >>remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
> >>Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
>
> >I wonder if they would apply the same rule towards "whites only" signs
> >on water fountains. After all, those are old too.
>
> It IS the 1950s again, you know.
>
> http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/local/states/texas/5373029.htm
>
> March 12, 2003
> 'Whites Only' signs win reprieve
Un-fucking-believable. This story didn't get a lot of press either. I
wonder why. At least it sounds like the person writing the story is
embarrassed that people in Dallas can be this stupid.
In the case of the ten commandments, the fucking morons trying to
preserve it aren't even embarrassed. In both cases they could easily
preserve history by taking a damn picture and then hauling these off to
some KKK museum, church, etc. What a flimsy and hypocritical fig leaf
these motherfucking racists and theocratic bigots are trying to hide
behind anyway. These same sort of people ran inquisitions, burned books,
and destroyed the cultural treasures of "pagans". Now they expect us to
respect their so-called "traditions"? Get real.
Incenjucar
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:3EFB31EA...@earthling.com...
Lovely to see that religion and racism go together so well still.
quibbler
says...
It certainly should not be above the current fucking water fountain. I
presume that the legacy "colored" water fountain, aka a rusty mop bucket,
has long since been retired. I presume that few tears were shed when
they parted with that priceless piece of Texas heritage. Now we're
supposed to fret over the sign being removed as well? It would not be
appropriate to just preserve the sign without proper context. A museum
or depository is the proper place for this because it can be given an
accurate context there. So no, don't white wash it. But don't be stupid
about it and revive a symbol of Jim Crow for people who do not want to
visit a museum. Since when did a courthouse become a museum anyway?
Perhaps Judge Roy Moore would like some dinosaur fossils and a picture of
Darwin in the court building that he frequents?
Fred Stone
The mere presence of these signs with explanatory plaques attached
doesn't violate the Act.
Mekkala
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:3efb1c77$0$1399$a186...@newsreader.visi.com:
I think the most important point here is that, sure, the plaque is
fine... in a museum or other appropriate place where people expect to
see historical objects. People do not go to a courthouse to view
relics, they go there for legal reasons, and to put a plaque of the Ten
Commandments there is wrongly associating the two. If it has historical
significance it should be in a place where people go to see historical
objects. For example, would you put a guillotine in a courthouse for
"historical significance"? No? Then don't put the Ten Commandments
there either.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!" --Peter O'Toole.
Brian Westley
And you know this...how? Would adding an explanatory plaque back
in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
back then?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
There are to be plaques attached with explanations of the historical
significance. The "context" includes the fact that it's in a public
building.
> A museum
> or depository is the proper place for this because it can be given an
> accurate context there. So no, don't white wash it. But don't be stupid
> about it and revive a symbol of Jim Crow for people who do not want to
> visit a museum.
Goodness no, we wouldn't want to remind people that society has overcome
things like that. ;-)
> Since when did a courthouse become a museum anyway?
Many public buildings have historical displays.
> Perhaps Judge Roy Moore would like some dinosaur fossils and a picture of
> Darwin in the court building that he frequents?
Maybe there's a difference between a sign that was originally installed
in the building and a fossil display?
Brian Westley
I haven't seen any indication that the "whites only" signs
were part of the original building, either. They were
engraved into the marble wall, but that could have been
done any time, not just during construction.
This later story indicates that nobody seems to know:
http://www.sacobserver.com/news/051903/whites_only_marker.shtml
...
The sign, believed to have been up for several decades, was
discovered by citizens in January after the metal plate
that had covered it for years was inadvertently removed. At
least one other similar sign was also discovered on another floor.
...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
http://www.dot.gov/ost/docr/regulations/library/CIVILR64.HTM
> Would adding an explanatory plaque back
> in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
> back then?
I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
Douglas Berry
Nokia <noki...@hotpop.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>How does the fact that the thing is OLD make a state promoted
>religion ok??
>
>Someone, please explain.
If it is a declared historical building or site, then changing it
becomes very difficult. There are laws to protect the integity of
suck buildings.. including the parts we don't like.
Since I'm a sucker for old buildings, I'll bend on this one.
--
Douglas Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Douglas Berry
quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>In article <3efb1c77$0$1399$a186...@newsreader.visi.com>,
>wes...@visi.com says...
><snip>
>> a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
>> ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
>> the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
>> remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
>> Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
>
>Yeah, right. 83-years is not a particularly long amount of time. In any
>event, they can put the plaque in a museum, not in the modern court
>house. Slavery is even older than 83 years. I guess that means it's
>constitutional as well, according to the appeals court logic.
Please. It's about a third of the US' history. 1920 was a very, very
different time. Not that many buildings left from that period in good
condition that haven't be extensively retrofitted.
Slavery was mde unconstitutional by the 13th Amendement.
Douglas Berry
John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>I wonder if they would apply the same rule towards "whites only" signs
>on water fountains. After all, those are old too.
Depends. Are they enfocing them, or just have them in historic
building?
Folks, I walked through Adolf Hitler's office at the Eagle's Nest (it
was made into a US Army rest area after the war, and stayed that way
until the early ninties.) Everything looks the way it was when the
101st Airborne captured it.. down to the Nazi flags. Doesn't mean
anything, just a historical building.
Wolf333
news:502nfv8i2niqoq0gr...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:20:34 +0200, a wanderer, known to us only as
> Nokia <noki...@hotpop.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
> >How does the fact that the thing is OLD make a state promoted
> >religion ok??
> >
> >Someone, please explain.
>
> If it is a declared historical building or site, then changing it
> becomes very difficult. There are laws to protect the integity of
> suck buildings.. including the parts we don't like.
Well, the integrity of suck buildings is very important ::)
>
> Since I'm a sucker for old buildings, I'll bend on this one.
>
> --
>
> Douglas Berry grid...@mindspring.com
> http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
> Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
>
> Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
> Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
--
_____
"Nothing says 'clown' like a fat, bald guy who enjoys stripping. He sure
fills me with whimsy. Wait, that's not whimsy... that's not whimsy at
all!" - somethingaweful.com
Michael Wolfe
aa # 1912
____
Fred Stone
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:20:34 +0200, a wanderer, known to us only as
> Nokia <noki...@hotpop.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>
>
>>How does the fact that the thing is OLD make a state promoted
>>religion ok??
>>
>>Someone, please explain.
>
>
> If it is a declared historical building or site, then changing it
> becomes very difficult.
Shit, I forgot all about the historical preservationists. Once they get
onto an old building, forget all about changing anything without reams
of paperwork and a lawsuit or two.
> There are laws to protect the integity of
> suck buildings.. including the parts we don't like.
>
> Since I'm a sucker for old buildings, I'll bend on this one.
>
> --
>
> Douglas Berry grid...@mindspring.com
> http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
> Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
>
> Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
> Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
--
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>>
>>>Brian Westley wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Brian Westley wrote:
>>>>>>If judge Moore loses and has to remove his ten commandments
>>>>>>monument, can he leave it there by just adding a sign that
>>>>>>explains all the court fights he went through?
>>>>>
>>>>>Moore would be in violation of a court order.
>>>>
>>>>The county was in violation of the 1964 civil rights act.
>>>
>>>The mere presence of these signs with explanatory plaques attached
>>>doesn't violate the Act.
>>
>> And you know this...how?
>http://www.dot.gov/ost/docr/regulations/library/CIVILR64.HTM
Be more specific.
>> Would adding an explanatory plaque back
>> in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
>> back then?
>I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
>nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
I would think that would still be in violation of the "intimidation"
prohibitions.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>
>>Brian Westley wrote:
>>
>>>Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Westley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Brian Westley wrote:
>>>>>
> ...
>
>>>>>>>If judge Moore loses and has to remove his ten commandments
>>>>>>>monument, can he leave it there by just adding a sign that
>>>>>>>explains all the court fights he went through?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Moore would be in violation of a court order.
>>>>>
>>>>>The county was in violation of the 1964 civil rights act.
>>>>
>>>>The mere presence of these signs with explanatory plaques attached
>>>>doesn't violate the Act.
>>>
>>>And you know this...how?
>>
>
>>http://www.dot.gov/ost/docr/regulations/library/CIVILR64.HTM
>
>
> Be more specific.
>
Title II, SEC. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to
withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any
right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate,
threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any
person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege
secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any
person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege
secured by section 201 or 202.
This talks about specific acts. Having an old sign with a new sign that
says, in essence, "that other sign there is an outdated artifact of our
barbaric past" doesn't seem to fit any of the descriptions.
>
>>>Would adding an explanatory plaque back
>>>in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
>>>back then?
>>
>
>>I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
>>nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
>
>
> I would think that would still be in violation of the "intimidation"
> prohibitions.
How could it be, when the attached plaque explains that it is now
overturned?
quibbler
grid...@mindspring.com says...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:03:26 -0600, a wanderer, known to us only as
> quibbler <quibb...@yahoo.com> warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >In article <3efb1c77$0$1399$a186...@newsreader.visi.com>,
> >wes...@visi.com says...
> ><snip>
> >> a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
> >> ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
> >> the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
> >> remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
> >> Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
> >
> >Yeah, right. 83-years is not a particularly long amount of time. In any
> >event, they can put the plaque in a museum, not in the modern court
> >house. Slavery is even older than 83 years. I guess that means it's
> >constitutional as well, according to the appeals court logic.
>
> Please. It's about a third of the US' history. 1920 was a very, very
> different time.
Actually, there seems to be some dispute that these signs really date
back that long. I was just quoting the wild guess that the
article mentioned initially. However, regardless of the fact that
American history is fairly short, That still doesn't make 80 years ago
that long. It's essentially one human lifetime. Not everything that
happened a lifetime ago is worth preserving. I think that we can
preserve it, but the court house is definitely not the ideal place for
such impromptu history lessons, especially if it might serve the covert
purpose of keeping around a symbol of slavery. I bet that the same
people who always want to fly the confederate flag probably want to see
more such signs sprouting up. Eventually, the new plaques can be removed
and then conservatives can achieve their ultimate fantasy of turning the
clock back to a bygone era.
> Not that many buildings left from that period in good
> condition that haven't be extensively retrofitted.
It sounds like this building has been retrofitted quite a bit and that it
is still being used for modern functioning. Adding new plaques to the
wall explaining the old signs will be another retrofit.
>
> Slavery was mde unconstitutional by the 13th Amendement.
Right. So what?
Al Klein
<grid...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>Slavery was mde unconstitutional by the 13th Amendement.
Government involvement in religion was made unconstitutional by the
first.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
rukbat at optonline dot net
Fred Stone
q, don't give up your day job. You're a lousy fantasy writer.
Brian Westley
What if they tried to do that back in 1964?
>>>>Would adding an explanatory plaque back
>>>>in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
>>>>back then?
>>>
>>
>>>I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
>>>nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
>>
>>
>> I would think that would still be in violation of the "intimidation"
>> prohibitions.
>How could it be, when the attached plaque explains that it is now
>overturned?
http://www.wfaa.com/cgarcia/stories/wfaa030422_am_sign.126f08bef.html
...
Ninth-grader Robert Phillips and his classmates are among the first to
see a newly uncovered "whites only" sign, one of two that remain above
drinking fountains in the Dallas County Records Building.
"I mean, I would not even want to drink water from this fountain because
it says 'Whites Only,'" said Phillips.
...
Sounds like he's intimidated to me.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
Sounds more angry to me. He knows that he's *allowed* to drink from it.
johac
Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote:
> Apparently old constitutional violations somehow become
> constitutional over time:
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6175978.htm
>
> A federal appeals court this morning ruled that the 83-year-old bronze
> plaque of the Ten Commandments may remain on the wall of the historic
> Chester County Courthouse.
>
> In a decision likely to likely to again confront the Supreme Court with
> a demand to define the boundary separating religion and government, a
> three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
> ruled that the plaque's age - rather than its religious content - was
> the prime motivation behind the Chester County Commissioners' refusal to
> remove the plaque at the request of Pocopson atheist Sally Flynn and the
> Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia.
Lameass decision. Hopefully, the Supremes will overturn it, if Bush
hasn't stacked the Court with fundies by the time it gets there.
> ...
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
Brian Westley
No answer here?
>>>>>>Would adding an explanatory plaque back
>>>>>>in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
>>>>>>back then?
>>>>>
>>>>>I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
>>>>>nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would think that would still be in violation of the "intimidation"
>>>>prohibitions.
>>>
>>
>>>How could it be, when the attached plaque explains that it is now
>>>overturned?
>>
>>
>> http://www.wfaa.com/cgarcia/stories/wfaa030422_am_sign.126f08bef.html
>> ...
>> Ninth-grader Robert Phillips and his classmates are among the first to
>> see a newly uncovered "whites only" sign, one of two that remain above
>> drinking fountains in the Dallas County Records Building.
>>
>> "I mean, I would not even want to drink water from this fountain because
>> it says 'Whites Only,'" said Phillips.
>> ...
>>
>> Sounds like he's intimidated to me.
>Sounds more angry to me. He knows that he's *allowed* to drink from it.
That doesn't exclude intimidation.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
That was then. This is now.
>
>>>>>>>Would adding an explanatory plaque back
>>>>>>>in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
>>>>>>>back then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
>>>>>>nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I would think that would still be in violation of the "intimidation"
>>>>>prohibitions.
>>>>
>>>>How could it be, when the attached plaque explains that it is now
>>>>overturned?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.wfaa.com/cgarcia/stories/wfaa030422_am_sign.126f08bef.html
>>>...
>>>Ninth-grader Robert Phillips and his classmates are among the first to
>>>see a newly uncovered "whites only" sign, one of two that remain above
>>>drinking fountains in the Dallas County Records Building.
>>>
>>>"I mean, I would not even want to drink water from this fountain because
>>>it says 'Whites Only,'" said Phillips.
>>>...
>>>
>>>Sounds like he's intimidated to me.
>>
>
>>Sounds more angry to me. He knows that he's *allowed* to drink from it.
>
>
> That doesn't exclude intimidation.
>
How do you know he's not a white kid?
Brian Westley
Why does the passage of time change it? The 1964 act hasn't changed
as far as the racial segregation prohibitions, so if it's legal
today it was legal 39 years ago.
>>>>>>>>Would adding an explanatory plaque back
>>>>>>>>in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
>>>>>>>>back then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
>>>>>>>nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would think that would still be in violation of the "intimidation"
>>>>>>prohibitions.
>>>>>
>>>>>How could it be, when the attached plaque explains that it is now
>>>>>overturned?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.wfaa.com/cgarcia/stories/wfaa030422_am_sign.126f08bef.html
>>>>...
>>>>Ninth-grader Robert Phillips and his classmates are among the first to
>>>>see a newly uncovered "whites only" sign, one of two that remain above
>>>>drinking fountains in the Dallas County Records Building.
>>>>
>>>>"I mean, I would not even want to drink water from this fountain because
>>>>it says 'Whites Only,'" said Phillips.
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like he's intimidated to me.
>>>
>>>Sounds more angry to me. He knows that he's *allowed* to drink from it.
>>
>> That doesn't exclude intimidation.
>How do you know he's not a white kid?
The same way you purport to "know" that no one can be
intimidated by the 'whites only' sign if you add another sign.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
The law hasn't changed, but society has. Those signs would have caused
riots in the sixties. Now all they cause is some liberal whining.
>
>>>>>>>>>Would adding an explanatory plaque back
>>>>>>>>>in 1964 (or whenever the sign was covered) have been sufficient
>>>>>>>>>back then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I would think so. The Act prohibits *actual* discrimination; it says
>>>>>>>>nothing about signs or symbols that aren't being enforced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would think that would still be in violation of the "intimidation"
>>>>>>>prohibitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How could it be, when the attached plaque explains that it is now
>>>>>>overturned?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.wfaa.com/cgarcia/stories/wfaa030422_am_sign.126f08bef.html
>>>>>...
>>>>>Ninth-grader Robert Phillips and his classmates are among the first to
>>>>>see a newly uncovered "whites only" sign, one of two that remain above
>>>>>drinking fountains in the Dallas County Records Building.
>>>>>
>>>>>"I mean, I would not even want to drink water from this fountain because
>>>>>it says 'Whites Only,'" said Phillips.
>>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds like he's intimidated to me.
>>>>
>>>>Sounds more angry to me. He knows that he's *allowed* to drink from it.
>>>
>>>That doesn't exclude intimidation.
>>
>
>>How do you know he's not a white kid?
>
>
> The same way you purport to "know" that no one can be
> intimidated by the 'whites only' sign if you add another sign.
>
I like the way you don't say "another sign that tells why the first sign
is wrong". Nice try, but nope, sorry. I gotcha on that one.
quibbler
says...
Fantasy is a crap genre anyway. But, of course, your opinion doesn't
mean much to begin with.
Brian Westley
The people rioting in the sixties WERE the liberals; the
conservatives saw nothing wrong with "whites only" water
fountains.
And it's still causing similar social effects; protests
and people trying to remove the sign on their own.
Not at all; you can change it to that if you like and I'm still right.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
90% of everything is crap. Not everybody agrees on which 90, either.
> But, of course, your opinion doesn't
> mean much to begin with.
Then why do you argue with me?
Fred Stone
<...>
>>>>>>>>This talks about specific acts. Having an old sign with a new sign that
>>>>>>>>says, in essence, "that other sign there is an outdated artifact of our
>>>>>>>>barbaric past" doesn't seem to fit any of the descriptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What if they tried to do that back in 1964?
>>>>>>
>>>>>No answer here?
>>>>
>>>>That was then. This is now.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why does the passage of time change it? The 1964 act hasn't changed
>>>as far as the racial segregation prohibitions, so if it's legal
>>>today it was legal 39 years ago.
>>>
>>
>
>>The law hasn't changed, but society has. Those signs would have caused
>>riots in the sixties. Now all they cause is some liberal whining.
>
>
> The people rioting in the sixties WERE the liberals; the
> conservatives saw nothing wrong with "whites only" water
> fountains.
That's pretty much my point.
I'm a conservative (I bet you knew that already) and I see LOTS wrong
with "whites only" water fountains. I'm not alone among conservatives.
<...>
>
>>I like the way you don't say "another sign that tells why the first sign
>>is wrong". Nice try, but nope, sorry. I gotcha on that one.
>
>
> Not at all; you can change it to that if you like and I'm still right.
>
I disagree. I think you're going out of your way to find things to be
sensitive about.
quibbler
says...
> quibbler wrote:
<snip>
> >>q, don't give up your day job. You're a lousy fantasy writer.
> >
> >
> > Fantasy is a crap genre anyway.
>
> 90% of everything is crap.
I wasn't saying only fantasy is crap. Furthermore, even within a crap
genre, a couple people manage to produce at least semi-polished turds.
David Drake has produced some passable fantasy along with his SF.
> Not everybody agrees on which 90, either.
>
> > But, of course, your opinion doesn't
> > mean much to begin with.
>
> Then why do you argue with me?
Because I'm trying to help you pull your head out of your ass. But
sometimes it seems like you've wedged it in there pretty tight :).
Fred Stone
> In article <3EFCA5D8...@earthling.com>, fsto...@earthling.com
> says...
>
>>quibbler wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>q, don't give up your day job. You're a lousy fantasy writer.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fantasy is a crap genre anyway.
>>
>>90% of everything is crap.
>
>
> I wasn't saying only fantasy is crap. Furthermore, even within a crap
> genre, a couple people manage to produce at least semi-polished turds.
> David Drake has produced some passable fantasy along with his SF.
I'm with you on David Drake. I think I have everything except the one
series.
"The Lord of the Isles" series is a good one if you haven't been there
yet. Just don't say the Words of Power out loud, you know, just in case. :-)
quibbler
> quibbler wrote:
> > In article <3EFCA5D8...@earthling.com>, fsto...@earthling.com
> > says...
> >
> >>quibbler wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>>q, don't give up your day job. You're a lousy fantasy writer.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Fantasy is a crap genre anyway.
> >>
> >>90% of everything is crap.
> >
> >
> > I wasn't saying only fantasy is crap. Furthermore, even within a crap
> > genre, a couple people manage to produce at least semi-polished turds.
> > David Drake has produced some passable fantasy along with his SF.
>
> I'm with you on David Drake. I think I have everything except the one
> series.
>
> "The Lord of the Isles" series is a good one if you haven't been there
> yet. Just don't say the Words of Power out loud, you know, just in case. :-)
I liked them too, though occasionally I found some of his plot devices a
tad silly. As far as the words of power, I think he said that they were
derived from sumerian or something, if I remember correctly.
Fred Stone
> In article <3EFCB28F...@earthling.com>, fsto...@earthling.com
> says...
>
>>quibbler wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3EFCA5D8...@earthling.com>, fsto...@earthling.com
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>quibbler wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>q, don't give up your day job. You're a lousy fantasy writer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Fantasy is a crap genre anyway.
>>>>
>>>>90% of everything is crap.
>>>
>>>
>>>I wasn't saying only fantasy is crap. Furthermore, even within a crap
>>>genre, a couple people manage to produce at least semi-polished turds.
>>>David Drake has produced some passable fantasy along with his SF.
>>
>>I'm with you on David Drake. I think I have everything except the one
>>series.
>>
>>"The Lord of the Isles" series is a good one if you haven't been there
>>yet. Just don't say the Words of Power out loud, you know, just in case. :-)
>
>
> I liked them too, though occasionally I found some of his plot devices a
> tad silly.
Yeah, he's kind of uneven there. Some really intense stuff and then some
wierd kind of comic relief, maybe.
> As far as the words of power, I think he said that they were
> derived from sumerian or something, if I remember correctly.
Something like that. The religious rituals are based on Sumerian myth.
Christopher A. Lee
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>"The Lord of the Isles" series is a good one if you haven't been there
>yet. Just don't say the Words of Power out loud, you know, just in case. :-)
The Lord of the Isles? One of the most beautiful steam locomotives
ever built. A Great Western Railway single-driver 4-2-2 built in the
1890s, to haul the lightweight passenger trains of that era at high
speed.
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>>
>>>Brian Westley wrote:
><...>
>>>>>>>>>This talks about specific acts. Having an old sign with a new sign that
>>>>>>>>>says, in essence, "that other sign there is an outdated artifact of our
>>>>>>>>>barbaric past" doesn't seem to fit any of the descriptions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What if they tried to do that back in 1964?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No answer here?
>>>>>
>>>>>That was then. This is now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why does the passage of time change it? The 1964 act hasn't changed
>>>>as far as the racial segregation prohibitions, so if it's legal
>>>>today it was legal 39 years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>>The law hasn't changed, but society has. Those signs would have caused
>>>riots in the sixties. Now all they cause is some liberal whining.
>>
>>
>> The people rioting in the sixties WERE the liberals; the
>> conservatives saw nothing wrong with "whites only" water
>> fountains.
>That's pretty much my point.
So, it would have been "bad" back when liberals would complain
and conservatives wouldn't, but it's OK now because only
liberals would complain....
>I'm a conservative (I bet you knew that already) and I see LOTS wrong
>with "whites only" water fountains. I'm not alone among conservatives.
So, it WOULD have been all right back in 1964 to just post another
sign, right?
I mean, TODAY, you're dismissing the complaints because it's only
a few "whining liberals"; back in 1964, it was ALSO just a few
"whining liberals".
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
Interesting. A Google search turns up quite a few different engines
called "The Lord of the Isles".
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>
>>Brian Westley wrote:
>>
>>>Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brian Westley wrote:
>>>
>
>><...>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>This talks about specific acts. Having an old sign with a new sign that
>>>>>>>>>>says, in essence, "that other sign there is an outdated artifact of our
>>>>>>>>>>barbaric past" doesn't seem to fit any of the descriptions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What if they tried to do that back in 1964?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No answer here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was then. This is now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why does the passage of time change it? The 1964 act hasn't changed
>>>>>as far as the racial segregation prohibitions, so if it's legal
>>>>>today it was legal 39 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The law hasn't changed, but society has. Those signs would have caused
>>>>riots in the sixties. Now all they cause is some liberal whining.
>>>
>>>
>>>The people rioting in the sixties WERE the liberals; the
>>>conservatives saw nothing wrong with "whites only" water
>>>fountains.
>>
>
>>That's pretty much my point.
>
>
> So, it would have been "bad" back when liberals would complain
> and conservatives wouldn't, but it's OK now because only
> liberals would complain....
Nobody has to complain now. Segregation is a settled issue with society,
particularly with the government. Now it's just a bunch of liberals
whining about some hypothetical "intimidation" that they can't prove exists.
>
>
>>I'm a conservative (I bet you knew that already) and I see LOTS wrong
>>with "whites only" water fountains. I'm not alone among conservatives.
>
>
> So, it WOULD have been all right back in 1964 to just post another
> sign, right?
That's what I said.
>
> I mean, TODAY, you're dismissing the complaints because it's only
> a few "whining liberals"; back in 1964, it was ALSO just a few
> "whining liberals".
The issue now isn't about segregation, it's about a stupid old sign from
back then.
Christopher A. Lee
<fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:09:35 -0400, Fred Stone
>> <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"The Lord of the Isles" series is a good one if you haven't been there
>>>yet. Just don't say the Words of Power out loud, you know, just in case. :-)
>>
>>
>> The Lord of the Isles? One of the most beautiful steam locomotives
>> ever built. A Great Western Railway single-driver 4-2-2 built in the
>> 1890s, to haul the lightweight passenger trains of that era at high
>> speed.
>
>Interesting. A Google search turns up quite a few different engines
>called "The Lord of the Isles".
The first one was a Gooch broad gauge 4-2-2. The one I'm talking about
was a Dean standard gauge engine. There's even a 25kvAC electric - on
those they used a mixture of honourable names from earlier eras,
together with modern names like TV programs that never seemed right.
Fred Stone
Heh, I can just see the "Simpsons" train. :-)
Brian Westley
How nice for you to speak for other people on how they "have to" feel.
>Segregation is a settled issue with society,
>particularly with the government. Now it's just a bunch of liberals
>whining about some hypothetical "intimidation" that they can't prove exists.
>>
>>
>>>I'm a conservative (I bet you knew that already) and I see LOTS wrong
>>>with "whites only" water fountains. I'm not alone among conservatives.
>>
>>
>> So, it WOULD have been all right back in 1964 to just post another
>> sign, right?
>That's what I said.
>> I mean, TODAY, you're dismissing the complaints because it's only
>> a few "whining liberals"; back in 1964, it was ALSO just a few
>> "whining liberals".
>The issue now isn't about segregation, it's about a stupid old sign from
>back then.
Which is still over a drinking fountain that's still used.
And yes, there ARE people who are complaining about it,
enough to try and remove the sign themselves.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
No, that's how *I* feel about it. You feel that you *do* have to
complain about it, and I disagree with you.
>
>>Segregation is a settled issue with society,
>>particularly with the government. Now it's just a bunch of liberals
>>whining about some hypothetical "intimidation" that they can't prove exists.
>
>
>>>
>>>>I'm a conservative (I bet you knew that already) and I see LOTS wrong
>>>>with "whites only" water fountains. I'm not alone among conservatives.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, it WOULD have been all right back in 1964 to just post another
>>>sign, right?
>>
>
>>That's what I said.
>
>
>>>I mean, TODAY, you're dismissing the complaints because it's only
>>>a few "whining liberals"; back in 1964, it was ALSO just a few
>>>"whining liberals".
>>
>
>>The issue now isn't about segregation, it's about a stupid old sign from
>>back then.
>
>
> Which is still over a drinking fountain that's still used.
> And yes, there ARE people who are complaining about it,
> enough to try and remove the sign themselves.
>
Let them complain. They can be arrested for vandalism if they try to
destroy the sign.
Daniel Kolle
>The 4-1 vote in favor of preserving the signs outraged African-American
>representatives, who vowed to continue to fight for removal and possibly
>take legal action
Jesus, it is a fucking plaque. As far as I know, the civil rights era
is over. Blacks that threaten to sue to remove things like this annoy
me.
--
-Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Fred Stone
> Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> thought hard and said:
>
>
>>The 4-1 vote in favor of preserving the signs outraged African-American
>>representatives, who vowed to continue to fight for removal and possibly
>>take legal action
>
>
> Jesus, it is a fucking plaque. As far as I know, the civil rights era
> is over. Blacks that threaten to sue to remove things like this annoy
> me.
>
They're stuck in the sixties. Can't allow that the country has moved on,
because then they aren't *activists* anymore, just bores.
Brian Westley
No, you said "Nobody has to complain now", as if you could
also speak for all other members of the community. If you
said that YOU, personally, wouldn't complain, that's an
entirely different statement.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
Nice snip, asshole. Next time I won't be so nice about it.
Brian Westley
>Nice snip, asshole.
Which snip, you dishonest bastard?
LOOK UP, it's RIGHT WHERE YOU WROTE IT.
>Next time I won't be so nice about it.
What the fuck are you whining about?? YOU WROTE YOUR
IDIOTIC STATEMENT. IT'S RIGHT THERE.
Here's the article where you first said it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EFCC8B2.1040204%40earthling.com
Here's the context leading up to your "Nobody has to complain now" remark:
============
>>>>The law hasn't changed, but society has. Those signs would have caused
>>>>riots in the sixties. Now all they cause is some liberal whining.
>>>
>>>
>>>The people rioting in the sixties WERE the liberals; the
>>>conservatives saw nothing wrong with "whites only" water
>>>fountains.
>>
>>That's pretty much my point.
>
>
> So, it would have been "bad" back when liberals would complain
> and conservatives wouldn't, but it's OK now because only
> liberals would complain....
Nobody has to complain now. Segregation is a settled issue with society,
particularly with the government. Now it's just a bunch of liberals
whining about some hypothetical "intimidation" that they can't prove exists.
============
Now fuck off.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Fred Stone
Where is the rest of the paragraph, oh snipful liar?
You're a fuckheaded asshole of a liberal whiner and you can't even keep
away from the troll tactics when you get cornered.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on and the pack mule too.
>
>
>>Next time I won't be so nice about it.
>
>
> What the fuck are you whining about?? YOU WROTE YOUR
> IDIOTIC STATEMENT. IT'S RIGHT THERE.
>
> Here's the article where you first said it:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EFCC8B2.1040204%40earthling.com
>
> Here's the context leading up to your "Nobody has to complain now" remark:
> ============
>
>>>>>The law hasn't changed, but society has. Those signs would have caused
>>>>>riots in the sixties. Now all they cause is some liberal whining.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The people rioting in the sixties WERE the liberals; the
>>>>conservatives saw nothing wrong with "whites only" water
>>>>fountains.
>>>
>>>That's pretty much my point.
>>
>>
>>So, it would have been "bad" back when liberals would complain
>>and conservatives wouldn't, but it's OK now because only
>>liberals would complain....
>
>
> Nobody has to complain now. Segregation is a settled issue with society,
> particularly with the government. Now it's just a bunch of liberals
> whining about some hypothetical "intimidation" that they can't prove exists.
> ============
>
> Now fuck off.
>
Fuck you, asshole. Thanks for the proof that you took one sentence out
of a whole paragraph.
Brian Westley
Reposted below, where the context doesn't change a thing, fuckhead.
>You're a fuckheaded asshole of a liberal whiner and you can't even keep
>away from the troll tactics when you get cornered.
I guess you can't even remember what you wrote a few hours earlier.
>Fuck you and the horse you rode in on and the pack mule too.
Whine, whine, whine.
>>
>>
>>>Next time I won't be so nice about it.
>>
>>
>> What the fuck are you whining about?? YOU WROTE YOUR
>> IDIOTIC STATEMENT. IT'S RIGHT THERE.
>>
>> Here's the article where you first said it:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EFCC8B2.1040204%40earthling.com
>>
>> Here's the context leading up to your "Nobody has to complain now" remark:
>> ============
>>
>>>>>>The law hasn't changed, but society has. Those signs would have caused
>>>>>>riots in the sixties. Now all they cause is some liberal whining.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The people rioting in the sixties WERE the liberals; the
>>>>>conservatives saw nothing wrong with "whites only" water
>>>>>fountains.
>>>>
>>>>That's pretty much my point.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, it would have been "bad" back when liberals would complain
>>>and conservatives wouldn't, but it's OK now because only
>>>liberals would complain....
>>
>>
>> Nobody has to complain now. Segregation is a settled issue with society,
>> particularly with the government. Now it's just a bunch of liberals
>> whining about some hypothetical "intimidation" that they can't prove exists.
>> ============
>>
>> Now fuck off.
>>
>Fuck you, asshole. Thanks for the proof that you took one sentence out
>of a whole paragraph.
And it MEANS EXACTLY WHAT I NAILED YOU FOR, you idiot.
You were trying to tell OTHER PEOPLE what THEY COULD COMPLAIN ABOUT.
Zeplerfer
>>on water fountains. After all, those are old too.
>
>Depends. Are they enfocing them, or just have them in historic
>building?
>
>Folks, I walked through Adolf Hitler's office at the Eagle's Nest (it
>was made into a US Army rest area after the war, and stayed that way
>until the early ninties.) Everything looks the way it was when the
>101st Airborne captured it.. down to the Nazi flags. Doesn't mean
>anything, just a historical building.
I see your point, we should keep those old "whites only" signs and the ten
commandments up to remind us of that disgraceful time in history when blacks
and whites were seperate, while church and state were not.
~Zeplerfer #423
I am *not* the leader of the EAC Denial Dept.
"Yeah, life's a bitch, but at least I don't have to worry about going to hell."