| Author |
Message |
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:17 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
In message <1130813052.087373.50830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, The
Other Fran <fran_beta@hotmail.com> writes
| Quote: |
Paul Wolff wrote:
In message <1130737286.961437.297340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, The
Other Fran <fran_beta@hotmail.com> writes
Well Charles clipped the post leaving in the section to which Skitt
objected and then said:
Mr Wolff said:
Likewise Rick Wotnaz said:
Ditto Steve Hayes.
Jim Lawton took no position, but didn't object.
I say, what's with this egregious "Mr"?
You call my whimsy "egregious"? I just like typing "Mr Wolff". It has a
nice ring to it.
I'll stop if it offends you though.
Not at all. The archaic sense of "egregious" as prominent or |
distinguished is what appealed to me as I typed.
Calling me "Mr Wolff" makes me think it must soon be dinner-time.
Perhaps I was a little confused posting at 1am with a digestif to hand
after already having dined out with a schoolmasterly wine buff and
assorted chums.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Richard Bollard wrote:
| Quote: | Anarchists lost their terrorist campaign because the response was, in
the whole, rational.
|
ObAue: Was this just a typo, or do you actually use "in the whole"? I've
only ever heard "on".
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
The Other Fran wrote:
| Quote: |
Robert Bannister wrote:
Richard Bollard wrote:
Anarchists lost their terrorist campaign because the response was, in
the whole, rational.
ObAue: Was this just a typo, or do you actually use "in the whole"? I've
only ever heard "on".
--
Rob Bannister
I suspect Richard was probably going to type something like "in
general" but thought better of it and thought to type "on the whole",
forgetting substituting "on" for "in". I've often done similar things
when rewording.
I've never heard "in the whole" either.
|
It follows "at bat" and "on deck." Ask Dizzy Dean (if you can get
through to him).
--
Bob Lieblich
Who has slud into third |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Robert Bannister wrote:
| Quote: | Richard Bollard wrote:
Anarchists lost their terrorist campaign because the response was, in
the whole, rational.
ObAue: Was this just a typo, or do you actually use "in the whole"? I've
only ever heard "on".
--
Rob Bannister
|
I suspect Richard was probably going to type something like "in
general" but thought better of it and thought to type "on the whole",
forgetting substituting "on" for "in". I've often done similar things
when rewording.
I've never heard "in the whole" either.
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:31 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:08:50 +0800, Robert Bannister
<robban@it.net.au> wrote:
| Quote: | Richard Bollard wrote:
Anarchists lost their terrorist campaign because the response was, in
the whole, rational.
ObAue: Was this just a typo, or do you actually use "in the whole"? I've
only ever heard "on".
|
A brilliant new coinage? No, a typo/thinko.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:38 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:54:31 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On 31 Oct 2005 14:03:09 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been in force over there since
about 1972 IIRC.
OK, but the proposed changes to the law are very recent. Blair wants
to be able to deport those people who give even the appearance of
being a danger to society -- goodbye to freedom of speech -- and to be
able to lock up people for up to 90 days even though there is no
specific charge against them. He's following a recommendation, he told
us, made by the police force. Oh, goody. Let's put them in charge.
John Dean isn't worried about the lose of some of his freedoms, should
parliament enact these laws, but I think he and everyone in the
western world should be. If these things can happen in England, they
could happen anywhere.
|
As Fran posted elsewhere, the stuff about sedition is what really
scares me. On a personal level, sedition (whatever that really is) is
something I could conceivably see myself being accused of. Where on
the slippery slope does an open mind become dissent become sedition?
I have a tendency to argue alternative points of view just to get
people thinking (and, I must admit, to be a bit of a ratbag). This
doesn't always mean I truly-ruly support the view.
I feel we have a duty to think of all possible points of view just in
case they end up being right. That's the dialectic.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:49 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Richard Bollard wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:54:31 +0000, Charles Riggs
chriggs@éircom.net
wrote:
On 31 Oct 2005 14:03:09 -0800, "The Other Fran"
fran_beta@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been in force over there
since
about 1972 IIRC.
OK, but the proposed changes to the law are very recent. Blair
wants
to be able to deport those people who give even the appearance of
being a danger to society -- goodbye to freedom of speech -- and
to
be able to lock up people for up to 90 days even though there is
no
specific charge against them. He's following a recommendation, he
told us, made by the police force. Oh, goody. Let's put them in
charge.
John Dean isn't worried about the lose of some of his freedoms,
should parliament enact these laws, but I think he and everyone in
the western world should be. If these things can happen in
England,
they could happen anywhere.
As Fran posted elsewhere, the stuff about sedition is what really
scares me. On a personal level, sedition (whatever that really is)
is
something I could conceivably see myself being accused of. Where on
the slippery slope does an open mind become dissent become
sedition?
I have a tendency to argue alternative points of view just to get
people thinking (and, I must admit, to be a bit of a ratbag). This
doesn't always mean I truly-ruly support the view.
I feel we have a duty to think of all possible points of view just
in
case they end up being right. That's the dialectic.
|
This Court finds you guilty of the offence of being in possession of
an imagination, and has no hesitation in sentencing you to life. And
we hope it's a long one.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Other Fran
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:08 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
| Quote: | Somebody claiming to be Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> wrote in
news:p3cim1lf8c9sfo9jcd2jpn929156eskvml@4ax.com:
As Fran posted elsewhere, the stuff about sedition is what really
scares me. On a personal level, sedition (whatever that really is) is
something I could conceivably see myself being accused of. Where on
the slippery slope does an open mind become dissent become sedition?
I hope you've been equally strident in your criticism of "religious
vilification" laws.
|
I can't speak for Richard, but I certainly have. In my view, people
should be able to spout any old tosh they like. If however, they act so
as to deny legitimate rights of others, incite specific criminal acts,
breach any trust, etc, their speech should be capable of being cited as
going to motive or inculpatory, if relevant, and as aggravating, at
sentence.
In some cases, the said "tosh" will make them unfit for certain roles,
and I have no problem with that either. Clearly, if a condition of
employment is capacity to follow EEO principles, and a person's
demeanour or views are incompatible with them acting in that way, then
it's not unreasonably discriminatory to exclude them.
But I'm against criminal laws on "hate speech".
TOF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ted Schuerzinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:09 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Somebody claiming to be Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> wrote in
news:p3cim1lf8c9sfo9jcd2jpn929156eskvml@4ax.com:
| Quote: | As Fran posted elsewhere, the stuff about sedition is what really
scares me. On a personal level, sedition (whatever that really is) is
something I could conceivably see myself being accused of. Where on
the slippery slope does an open mind become dissent become sedition?
|
I hope you've been equally strident in your criticism of "religious
vilification" laws.
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Oh Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there....
--Homer Simpson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:14 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 03:29:10 -0000, Ted Schuerzinger
<fedya@bestweb.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | Somebody claiming to be Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> wrote in
news:p3cim1lf8c9sfo9jcd2jpn929156eskvml@4ax.com:
As Fran posted elsewhere, the stuff about sedition is what really
scares me. On a personal level, sedition (whatever that really is) is
something I could conceivably see myself being accused of. Where on
the slippery slope does an open mind become dissent become sedition?
I hope you've been equally strident in your criticism of "religious
vilification" laws.
|
For some values of "strident". The main difference is that I can't see
myself being accused of religious vilification, not in this
incarnation anyway.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ted Schuerzinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
Somebody claiming to be Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> wrote in
news:lbrvm1lj845ft4jhmtvpav3drmf870lg8v@4ax.com:
| Quote: | I hope you've been equally strident in your criticism of "religious
vilification" laws.
For some values of "strident". The main difference is that I can't see
myself being accused of religious vilification, not in this
incarnation anyway.
|
So you only care to protect free speech when it's speech you might make?
Part of the problem is that such 'sensitivity' laws always seem to get
enforced arbitrarily. You can make fun of some groups, but not others....
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Oh Marge, anyone can miss Canada, all tucked away down there....
--Homer Simpson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 am
Post subject: Re: "It's a different world now" |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:48:37 -0000, Ted Schuerzinger
<fedya@bestweb.spam> wrote:
| Quote: | Somebody claiming to be Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> wrote in
news:lbrvm1lj845ft4jhmtvpav3drmf870lg8v@4ax.com:
I hope you've been equally strident in your criticism of "religious
vilification" laws.
For some values of "strident". The main difference is that I can't see
myself being accused of religious vilification, not in this
incarnation anyway.
So you only care to protect free speech when it's speech you might make?
|
No. I wrote what I wrote for the reason stated. The reason did not
extrapolate this time. You ave no grounds to infer any attitude about
other restrictions on speech from what I wrote.
If you go back to my original post, I started from the comment that I
could see (people like) myself coming under the rather vague
definition of sedition under discussion. This has nothing to do with
my opinion of other restrictive laws.
| Quote: |
Part of the problem is that such 'sensitivity' laws always seem to get
enforced arbitrarily. You can make fun of some groups, but not others....
|
Of course, but this is not what I was writing about. We can start
hares from any discussion here but to attribute attitudes or to air
peeves on scanty evidence is fraught, usage-wise.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in