freebsd-chat-digest V5 #711
owner-freebs...@freebsd.org
freebsd-chat-digest Monday, February 24 2003 Volume 05 : Number 711
In this issue:
Re: was this really necessary?
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary?
Re: was this really necessary?
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary?
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
the apology [ was: Re: was this really necessary? ]
Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Re: was this really necessary?
Re: was this really necessary?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:26:02 -0800
From: Terry Lambert <tlam...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary?
"Jason T. Nelson" wrote:
> In our last exciting episode, rob spellberg (emai...@emailrob.com) said:
> > i read that you are big on the "right to free speech".
> > i do so hate to get legalistic on you and
> > i am not being the least bit faux here but,
> > in the usa, it's actually a "privilege".
> > that's because our constitution has an amendment process.
> > our much ballyhooed first amendment --is-- repealable.
> > all it takes is for 2/3 each of our house and senate and
> > 3/4 of our states to think that
> > "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
>
> And this is particularly why we have the 2nd amendment; the second the US
> federal government tries this is the day I march on Washington armed to
> defend my rights as defined in our Constitution (and I wouldn't be alone, I
> assure you). I doubt you could seriously consider that Congress attempting
> this stupidity as "representing" our citizens' interests.
The Constitution does not grant these rights; it merely
acknowledges them. Look up "inalienable". 8-) 8-).
- -- Terry
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 13:04:53 -0600
From: Chip Morton <tech...@threespace.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
At 08:44 AM 2/22/2003, you wrote:
>If anybody was offended by this but of off-key humor, I wholeheartedly
>apologize.
First off, I applaud you for your apology on this issue, Stacy. It takes
tremendous character and understanding to consider others' perspectives,
even when your own perspective tells you that you've done nothing wrong.
To all others who responded in favor of the humor or in defense of the
individual's right to free speech, I believe you've missed the point
entirely. The jive filter isn't based on a dialect; it's based on a
centuries old stereotype of African-American speech. The content of the
message wasn't funny at all. But even the mind-numbingly dull GPL is funny
when you make yourself up in blackface with big white lips and add a little
shuffle, isn't it?
The simple fact is that I think most of you are too far removed from the
group you're making fun of to understand why they wouldn't find the joke
nearly as funny. Despite being incredibly enlightened with regard to
technology, most of you are painfully ignorant with respect to
understanding anybody that's not as white-bread as you are. Perhaps when
somebody writes the homo filter or the habib filter or the lo-wang filter
or some other filter that strikes uncomfortably close to home for you, then
you'll understand.
- --Chip Morton
When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not a gypsy.
When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I am not a Catholic.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 2003 11:38:25 -0800
From: sw...@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen)
Subject: Re: was this really necessary?
Terry Lambert <tlam...@mindspring.com> writes:
> "Jason T. Nelson" wrote:
> >
> > And this is particularly why we have the 2nd amendment; the second the US
> > federal government tries this is the day I march on Washington armed to
> > defend my rights as defined in our Constitution (and I wouldn't be alone, I
> > assure you). I doubt you could seriously consider that Congress attempting
> > this stupidity as "representing" our citizens' interests.
>
> The Constitution does not grant these rights; it merely
> acknowledges them. Look up "inalienable". 8-) 8-).
Did anybody here say the Constitution grants rights? Jason used "defined".
As for "inalienable", that's from the Declaration of Independence, which
can be easily ignored by those amending the Constitution. (Of course,
The People may claim their rights, regardless of the Constitution.)
There is a language problem here, though. The word "right" has many
meanings, so that our language is often misinterpreted and discussions
become babble. There are two main meanings, with a big difference:
"Privilege":
This the obvious and most practical meaning -- the most useful one.
When people mean something different, they should use more words;
but they don't, leading to the creation of this definition:
"Claim of Privilege":
This meaning is usually rendered fuzzy by an implied or explicit
prefixing with the word "Just". At one extreme, "Just" is defined
metaphysically as coming from a god. At the other extreme, it's
defined as coming from some law/regulation/rule. In the middle,
it comes from tradition and/or supreme law as from our Declaration
of Independence and/or Constitution (as misinterpreted by a Court).
It's unclear what people are thinking when they say "driving's not a
right, it's a privilege". (Most are probably not thinking at all, but
merely quoting a mantra tought to them by their teachers who, in turn,
learned it from their socialist college professors.) Driving can be
considered either a priviledge or a just claim to a privilege as granted
by law to those who qualify (i.e., a right).
Changing the subject somewhat, I'll note that regardless of what
*claims* people have on any privileges, the *enjoyment* of those
privileges are ultimately dependent on explicit or implicit *grants* of
privilege by the people controlling the force of arms, who are usually,
in turn, controlled by means of money. If you want to try to ensure
your enjoyment of rights, you need to strive after control of the guns
and money.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:43:54 -0500
From: "Jason T. Nelson" <j...@jtn.cx>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary?
- --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In our last exciting episode, Terry Lambert (tlam...@mindspring.com) said:
> The Constitution does not grant these rights; it merely
> acknowledges them. Look up "inalienable". 8-) 8-).
Ah, sorry. You are correct, of course. :)
- --=20
Jason T. Nelson <j...@jtn.cx> http://www.jtn.cx/~jtn/
BOFH Extraordiaire & Sysadmin Ombudsman GPG key 0xFF676C9E
GPG key fingerprint =3D 6272 5482 EDDD D0A3 FED2 262A FABB 599D FF67 6C9E
disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Don't bother my employer about them.
- --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+WSR6+rtZnf9nbJ4RAgGgAKCrQ7SVWcC3NwyIVqSrrydcK4tvzQCfQdPx
J2ZPal8Kvu66hgFW93eaL/4=
=3fY4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:56:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Darren Henderson <dar...@nighttide.net>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Chip Morton wrote:
> To all others who responded in favor of the humor or in defense of the
> individual's right to free speech, I believe you've missed the point
> entirely. The jive filter isn't based on a dialect; it's based on a
> centuries old stereotype of African-American speech. The content of the
"jive" was as much a dialect as any other popular vernacular is for its
time. Its certainly not based of a centuries old stereotype. Its more
recent then hippie/flower child speak, beatnik, etc. And its no different
then the vernacular of present day MTV, hip-hop, or club crowd (insert
any subculture here that you like [subculture being a component of the
whole culture not a diminutive]).
______________________________________________________________________
Darren Henderson dar...@nighttide.net
Help fight junk e-mail, visit http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:08:13 -0800
From: Terry Lambert <tlam...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary?
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
> Terry Lambert <tlam...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > "Jason T. Nelson" wrote:
> > > And this is particularly why we have the 2nd amendment; the second the US
> > > federal government tries this is the day I march on Washington armed to
> > > defend my rights as defined in our Constitution (and I wouldn't be alone, I
> > > assure you). I doubt you could seriously consider that Congress attempting
> > > this stupidity as "representing" our citizens' interests.
> >
> > The Constitution does not grant these rights; it merely
> > acknowledges them. Look up "inalienable". 8-) 8-).
>
> Did anybody here say the Constitution grants rights? Jason used "defined".
>
> As for "inalienable", that's from the Declaration of Independence, which
> can be easily ignored by those amending the Constitution. (Of course,
> The People may claim their rights, regardless of the Constitution.)
As Jason points out, if that were to happen, we'd just re-declare
out independence. 8-) 8-).
> There is a language problem here, though. The word "right" has many
> meanings, so that our language is often misinterpreted and discussions
> become babble. There are two main meanings, with a big difference:
>
> "Privilege":
> This the obvious and most practical meaning -- the most useful one.
> When people mean something different, they should use more words;
> but they don't, leading to the creation of this definition:
"Driving is not a right, it's a priviledge", since we nationalized
the highway system in 1954 in order to force standards to support
width and bridge height requirements for mobile command posts, in
the event of nuclear war. 8-).
> "Claim of Privilege":
> This meaning is usually rendered fuzzy by an implied or explicit
> prefixing with the word "Just". At one extreme, "Just" is defined
> metaphysically as coming from a god. At the other extreme, it's
> defined as coming from some law/regulation/rule. In the middle,
> it comes from tradition and/or supreme law as from our Declaration
> of Independence and/or Constitution (as misinterpreted by a Court).
inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
<inalienable rights>
right: 1 qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful
authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral
propriety or merit moral approval
2 something to which one has a just claim: as a : the
power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
b(1) the interest that one has in a piece of property
-- often used in plural <mineral rights
(2) plural : the property interest possessed under law
or custom and agreement in an intangible thing
especially of a literary and artistic nature
<film rights of the novel>
3 something that one may properly claim as due
4 the cause of truth or justice
> It's unclear what people are thinking when they say "driving's not a
> right, it's a privilege". (Most are probably not thinking at all, but
> merely quoting a mantra tought to them by their teachers who, in turn,
> learned it from their socialist college professors.) Driving can be
> considered either a priviledge or a just claim to a privilege as granted
> by law to those who qualify (i.e., a right).
Driving, as a right, is not inalienable. It was alienated in the
Interstate Highway Act of 1954 (see above).
> Changing the subject somewhat, I'll note that regardless of what
> *claims* people have on any privileges, the *enjoyment* of those
> privileges are ultimately dependent on explicit or implicit *grants* of
> privilege by the people controlling the force of arms, who are usually,
> in turn, controlled by means of money. If you want to try to ensure
> your enjoyment of rights, you need to strive after control of the guns
> and money.
That really doesn't agree with Locke or Rosseau... 8-) 8-).
- -- Terry
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 2003 12:53:35 -0800
From: sw...@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen)
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Chip Morton <tech...@threespace.com> writes:
> First off, I applaud you for your apology on this issue, Stacy. It
> takes tremendous character and understanding to consider others'
> perspectives, even when your own perspective tells you that you've done
> nothing wrong.
Chip, that's a bunch of &^%#^ %@^$^%.
I'd explain that further and comment on some of your other nonsense, but
we've just been reminded that we need to watch what we say around here.
To save time, let me say now that I'm sorry. I made this all up to
make a point. The Devil made me do it. Please accept my apology.
- --
Gary, a man of tremendous character and understanding. ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:30:04 -0600
From: Chip Morton <tech...@threespace.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
At 01:56 PM 2/23/2003, Darren Henderson wrote:
>"jive" was as much a dialect as any other popular vernacular is for its
>time. Its certainly not based of a centuries old stereotype. Its more
>recent then hippie/flower child speak, beatnik, etc. And its no different
>then the vernacular of present day MTV, hip-hop, or club crowd (insert
>any subculture here that you like [subculture being a component of the
>whole culture not a diminutive]).
This is not true. "Jive" was originally a form of swing-out style dancing
that originated around the turn of the century and became immensely popular
during the big jazz explosion of the 20's. Since both the dance style and
the music were born in the African-American community, the term "jive" is
inextricably associated with African-Americans, despite the fact that the
current usage has spread around the world. (See
http://www.centralhome.com/ballroomcountry/swing.htm and
http://ky.essortment.com/historyofjive_rklw.htm for more information.)
The re-emergence of the term in the 70's in many black sitcoms (e.g., "Good
Times" and "The Jeffersons") only helped to solidify that association. But
the term existed long before hippies and beatniks to be sure.
- --Chip Morton
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:54:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Darren Henderson <dar...@nighttide.net>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Chip Morton wrote:
> This is not true. "Jive" was originally a form of swing-out style dancing
> that originated around the turn of the century and became immensely popular
In the context of the filter in questions it was a 70's and early 80's
fashion. I am aware of the origins of the word "jive" in the historical
context of jazz - it doesn't apply to this situation.
> The re-emergence of the term in the 70's in many black sitcoms (e.g., "Good
> Times" and "The Jeffersons") only helped to solidify that association. But
> the term existed long before hippies and beatniks to be sure.
The term but not the dialect - and that was the issue I was addressing.
Words usually have differning meanings over time and distance - this is
paticularly true of english. The implied assertion that use of a dialect
implies deeper and darker intentions. The use of "jive" as dialect is no
more inherently offensive then is the use of a Maine brogue, a Georgia
drawl, or a Cockney rhyme. Context and intent mean everyting.
I personally find it frightening that such inherently chilling beliefs may
be more widely held.
______________________________________________________________________
Darren Henderson dar...@nighttide.net
Help fight junk e-mail, visit http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 17:58:42 -0500
From: "Jason T. Nelson" <j...@jtn.cx>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
- --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In our last exciting episode, Darren Henderson (dar...@nighttide.net) said:
> I personally find it frightening that such inherently chilling beliefs may
> be more widely held.
I know this is getting too far off topic, but recall that the whole=20
"Politically Correct" movement seems to have consumed the minds of otherwise
intelligent people all across America. The irony is that the whole concept
of "tolerance" pushed by the PC-heads flies in the face of the attitude
most of them commonly put forth.
- --=20
Jason T. Nelson <j...@jtn.cx> http://www.jtn.cx/~jtn/
BOFH Extraordiaire & Sysadmin Ombudsman GPG key 0xFF676C9E
GPG key fingerprint =3D 6272 5482 EDDD D0A3 FED2 262A FABB 599D FF67 6C9E
disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Don't bother my employer about them.
- --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+WVIi+rtZnf9nbJ4RAox/AKCUhE35LQ5WcIenTZxrAWQZhSNiIgCeInD4
qJR/fPPOgnsxhWudH06BbrA=
=8clf
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:05:38 -0500
From: "Alan B. Clegg" <alan-dated-104...@clegg.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
- --4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Has nobody seen "Airplane"?
http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0080339
Enjoy!
AlanC
- --=20
I must study politics and war that my sons | =20
may have liberty to study mathematics and | al...@clegg.com
philosophy. -- John Adams |
- --4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+WWHRyJP8xSfQVdsRAmu7AJ4ucD+GfupEPiMQDb9aJTcQUdoZGQCgxq6h
6vgE5hn+Vsta2EByTeH1f7w=
=sHGy
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:10:18 +0100
From: Stacy Olivas <oli...@digiflux.org>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Stacy Olivas wrote:
> Willie Viljoen wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 22 February 2003 5:45, rob spellberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>> if you re-read my post, you will find that i do --not-- say
>>> that so should not circulate her thoughts.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Stacy is male, and "she" can circulate what ever thoughts "she"
>> wants. While you dig your foot out of your mouth, "she" should
>> continue with "her" work, if your sense of humor is too limited to
>> accomodate that, simply do what anybody who doesn't want to get mail
>> from a mailing list does, unsubscribe, it's a free world. You don't
>> have to read our mail if you don't want to.
>>
>>
> Thanks Willie.. Yes, please don't let the name fool you. I am
> indeed male and not female.
>
> -Stacy
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:10:35 +0100
From: Stacy Olivas <oli...@digiflux.org>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Stacy Olivas wrote:
> Chip Morton wrote:
>
> > I have to second this one. I don't believe any malice was intended,
> > but I don't think Stacy fully considered others' perspectives before
> > this e-mail was sent.
>
> My apologies all for touching off a debate.. I was tired and figured
> that after
> reading a ton of arguments about this or this on this list, that a little
> humor might be in order.
>
> As for the length of the GPL, my bad. Like I said, I was suffering from
> a lack of sleep (and thus not clearly thinking before doing).
>
> If anybody was offended by this but of off-key humor, I wholeheartedly
> apologize.
>
>
> -Stacy
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:46:34 +0100
From: Stacy Olivas <oli...@digiflux.org>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Chip Morton wrote:
> At 08:44 AM 2/22/2003, you wrote:
>
>> If anybody was offended by this but of off-key humor, I wholeheartedly
>> apologize.
>
>
>
> First off, I applaud you for your apology on this issue, Stacy. It
> takes tremendous character and understanding to consider others'
> perspectives, even when your own perspective tells you that you've
> done nothing wrong.
Thanks Chip. Like I said.. I was only trying to bring a little
off-key humor to the list. I didn't realize that it would spark
this kind of discussion.
>
> To all others who responded in favor of the humor or in defense of the
> individual's right to free speech, I believe you've missed the point
> entirely. The jive filter isn't based on a dialect; it's based on a
> centuries old stereotype of African-American speech. The content of
> the message wasn't funny at all. But even the mind-numbingly dull GPL
> is funny when you make yourself up in blackface with big white lips
> and add a little shuffle, isn't it?
Hmm... True.. It is based on a stereotype that has been perpetuated by
just about everyone. There is another message in this thread (after this
one)
that asks if anyone has seen Airplane (and it gives a link to the site with
the quote in question). Anyone remember the two black guys on the plane
who were talking "jive"? Then the little old lady stepped in to help (the
stuardess, or is it flight attendant ? ) and translated between english
and the "jive" talkers.
>
> The simple fact is that I think most of you are too far removed from
> the group you're making fun of to understand why they wouldn't find
> the joke nearly as funny. Despite being incredibly enlightened with
> regard to technology, most of you are painfully ignorant with respect
> to understanding anybody that's not as white-bread as you are.
> Perhaps when somebody writes the homo filter or the habib filter or
> the lo-wang filter or some other filter that strikes uncomfortably
> close to home for you, then you'll understand.
I do know that people within their own groups often times use
what are considered racial remarks and stereotypical ways of talking/
acting jokingly. For example, how many people have heard the what I
will refer to as the "N" word used between people of the same
ethnicity in a way that was totally non-derogatory?
Is it right to stereotype? No. However, taking what could be considered
to be a stereotypical portrayal of a a group and turning it into something
that is totally non-derogatory can be a good laugh by everyone.
How many people out there laugh at Jeff Foxworthy AND are from
the South?
How many people laughed at Rudy Ray Moore's (a.k.a Dolomite) comedy?
(Here's an interesting link: http://www.blaxploitation.com/)
- -Stacy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:00:31 -0500
From: Larry Sica <lom...@mac.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 07:05 PM, Alan B. Clegg wrote:
> Has nobody seen "Airplane"?
>
> http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0080339
>
one of my favorite movies of all time :)
June Cleaver translating jive was priceless heh.
- --Larry
> Enjoy!
>
> AlanC
> --
> I must study politics and war that my sons |
> may have liberty to study mathematics and | al...@clegg.com
> philosophy. -- John Adams |
> <mime-attachment>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:05:27 -0600
From: rob spellberg <emai...@emailrob.com>
Subject: the apology [ was: Re: was this really necessary? ]
Stacy Olivas wrote:
> Yes, please don't let the name fool you. I am
> indeed male and not female.
>
> -Stacy
stacy ---
please accept my sincerest apologies
for referring to you with feminine pronouns.
i've been on this list for a couple of years now and
nothing suggested to me that "stacy" was a male.
i --did-- notice the spelling,
but i have female friends who use this form,
so it didn't really help.
i assure you that no insult or other offense was intended
by my incorrect identification of your gender.
by way of explanation [ and not as an excuse ],
most of my email goes to either
people whom i have already met in person or to
people who include a gender-specific title with their name.
i hope you understand.
rob
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:14:19 -0600
From: rob spellberg <emai...@emailrob.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary? [ was Re: The FreeBSD Jive Copyright ]
Willie Viljoen wrote:
>
> On Saturday 22 February 2003 5:45, rob spellberg wrote:
> > if you re-read my post, you will find that i do --not-- say
> > that so should not circulate her thoughts.
>
> Stacy is male, and "she" can circulate what ever thoughts "she" wants. While
> you dig your foot out of your mouth, "she" should continue with "her" work,
> if your sense of humor is too limited to accomodate that, simply do what
> anybody who doesn't want to get mail from a mailing list does, unsubscribe,
> it's a free world. You don't have to read our mail if you don't want to.
> --
> Willie Viljoen
> Freelance IT Consultant
hmmm....
if that's all you can find to disagree about,
i guess you agree with everything else.
thank you for your support.
rob
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:45:26 -0600
From: rob spellberg <emai...@emailrob.com>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary?
"Jason T. Nelson" wrote:
>
> In our last exciting episode, rob spellberg (emai...@emailrob.com) said:
> > i read that you are big on the "right to free speech".
> > i do so hate to get legalistic on you and
> > i am not being the least bit faux here but,
> > in the usa, it's actually a "privilege".
> > that's because our constitution has an amendment process.
> > our much ballyhooed first amendment --is-- repealable.
> > all it takes is for 2/3 each of our house and senate and
> > 3/4 of our states to think that
> > "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
>
> And this is particularly why we have the 2nd amendment; the second the US
> federal government tries this is the day I march on Washington armed to
> defend my rights as defined in our Constitution (and I wouldn't be alone, I
> assure you). I doubt you could seriously consider that Congress attempting
> this stupidity as "representing" our citizens' interests.
>
> > just think: if it wasn't for that pesky first amendment,
> > we could finally pass a meaningful "hate speech code".
>
> I really, REALLY, hope you are joking here.
>
> --
> Jason T. Nelson <j...@jtn.cx> http://www.jtn.cx/~jtn/
yes, i am;
but you are not to blame for not being certain you recognized it.
because i am not a frequent poster to this list,
readers do not have, as yet,
sufficient experience with my writing style
to be able to tell the difference.
originally, i was making a distinction between rights and privileges.
privileges entail responsibilities; rights don't.
i reserve, in perpetuity, a non-exclusive right to be wrong.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
because the concern you express is so important,
for the record, i am somewhere to the right of
[ in no particular order, some people who are well known ]:
rush limbaugh,
charlton heston,
walter e. williams,
newt gingrich,
larry kudlow,
larry elder,
the late barry goldwater [ before he went off his nut ],
ann coulter,
matt drudge [ it's almost show time ],
sean hannity,
george will [ don't watch him anymore ],
laura ingraham,
peggy noonan,
the late barbara olson,
kellyanne conway,
"dick the butcher" [ a fictional character, just like candice bergen ],
brit hume,
fred barnes,
john mclaughlin,
armstrong williams,
oliver north,
glenn hubbard [ read the economic report of the president ],
lynne and dick cheney,
w and [ cue the choir ]
ronald reagan.
protect the first ten amendments.
repeal the XVI, XVII, XXII and XXVI amendments.
cut spending.
cut taxes on net producers.
tax the freeloaders.
if immigrants want to come here to work,
let's find a way to make them all legal;
then they can't be exploited and
we can tax them just like all of the rest of us.
stake burning is too good for terrorists.
free trade is good.
world trade is good.
low tariffs are good.
growth is good.
going nuclear is a slap in the face to the oil sheiks.
my favorite sheik is the late sheik yerbouti.
capitalism is the best means ever invented to
channel the natural ambition and aggression of males into
non-violent and socially productive pursuits.
socialism produces freeloaders.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
i could go on for pages,
but this should be sufficient to allay your fears.
rob
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:38:17 +0100
From: Stacy Olivas <oli...@digiflux.org>
Subject: Re: was this really necessary?
rob spellberg wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>
>>>just think: if it wasn't for that pesky first amendment,
>>> we could finally pass a meaningful "hate speech code".
>>>
>>>
>>I really, REALLY, hope you are joking here.
>>
>>--
>>Jason T. Nelson <j...@jtn.cx> http://www.jtn.cx/~jtn/
>>
>>
>
>
>yes, i am;
> but you are not to blame for not being certain you recognized it.
>
>because i am not a frequent poster to this list,
> readers do not have, as yet,
> sufficient experience with my writing style
> to be able to tell the difference.
>
>originally, i was making a distinction between rights and privileges.
>privileges entail responsibilities; rights don't.
>
>i reserve, in perpetuity, a non-exclusive right to be wrong.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>because the concern you express is so important,
> for the record, i am somewhere to the right of
> [ in no particular order, some people who are well known ]:
>
> rush limbaugh,
> charlton heston,
> walter e. williams,
> newt gingrich,
> larry kudlow,
> larry elder,
> the late barry goldwater [ before he went off his nut ],
> ann coulter,
> matt drudge [ it's almost show time ],
> sean hannity,
> george will [ don't watch him anymore ],
> laura ingraham,
> peggy noonan,
> the late barbara olson,
> kellyanne conway,
> "dick the butcher" [ a fictional character, just like candice bergen ],
> brit hume,
> fred barnes,
> john mclaughlin,
> armstrong williams,
> oliver north,
> glenn hubbard [ read the economic report of the president ],
> lynne and dick cheney,
> w and [ cue the choir ]
> ronald reagan.
>
>protect the first ten amendments.
>repeal the XVI, XVII, XXII and XXVI amendments.
>cut spending.
>cut taxes on net producers.
>tax the freeloaders.
>if immigrants want to come here to work,
> let's find a way to make them all legal;
> then they can't be exploited and
> we can tax them just like all of the rest of us.
>stake burning is too good for terrorists.
>free trade is good.
>world trade is good.
>low tariffs are good.
>growth is good.
>going nuclear is a slap in the face to the oil sheiks.
>my favorite sheik is the late sheik yerbouti.
>
>capitalism is the best means ever invented to
> channel the natural ambition and aggression of males into
> non-violent and socially productive pursuits.
>
>socialism produces freeloaders.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>i could go on for pages,
> but this should be sufficient to allay your fears.
>
>
Here's a good quote that will probably sum up a lot of
how people feel on this list:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it"
- -Voltaire's biographer, describing his view of freedom of speech.
- -Stacy
------------------------------
End of freebsd-chat-digest V5 #711
**********************************
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-chat-digest in the body of the message