Re: Heston speech

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Sat Feb 24 2001 - 14:22:55 MST

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:40:55 -0500
>From: Michael Lorrey <>
>Subject: Re: Heston speech
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:56:04 -0500
>> >From: Michael Lorrey <>
>> >> >
>> >> Under PC pressure, just like the kind that Charleton Heston himself said that he had experienced. Just as list moderators can exercise their rights by labelling certain threads off-topic for a list. They can, and are, fully expressible elsewhere.
>> >
>> >YOU're back again? Still lying through your teeth, too, I see.
>> >
>> I never went anywhere. And, just what IS the lie in the above, Mikey? Is it a lie that Time/warner pulled "Cop Killer" because of right-wing PC pressure? NO. Is it a lie that in his speech Charleton Heston said that he himself has experienced PC pressure? NO. Is it a lie that list moderators can declare some subjects off-topic for a list? NO. Is it a lie that any subject is expressible somewhere, thus all must be expressible elsewhere? NO. Did I sassert ANYTHING ELSE in the above? Once again, a resounding NO.
>Yes, Joe, you lied in implying that Charlton Heston, the NRA, or guns
>have been declared off-topic for this list. That isn't true, you've been
>repeatedly told it isn't true, on many occasions by many individuals, so
>making that implication is a lie.
And just exactly where did I imply such above? Answer: NOWHERE! The only implication resides in your paranoid, fevered and benighted excuse for a brain. You must read what is written, and not what you impose upon it. The lie is yours.
>> Well, Mikey-boy, where is the lie? Oh, yes; it's a lie where you said that I was lying; but discerning readers have come to expect such lies from the likes of you and others of your propagandistic ilk. One of the ways in which you attempt to cow and silence those who disagree with you is to call them names. That logical fallacy, the ad hominem one (in case you didn't know), was proven illegitimate by the greeks about 2700 years ago, but I guess Retroman is a bit behind the times, ayy?
>Calling someone or something by its proper name as demonstrated by
>repeated behavior is not ad hominem, either, so once again, you are
>lying, Joe.
Npo, YOU'RE the liar. I demonstrably DID NOT LIE, so calling me a liar IS a lie; YOUR LIE, LIAR!!!! And Retroman is a particularly ludditic and anti-extropian sig (and that's no lie, either).
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, no. Political Correctness is not about being in line with my values
>> >> >about who it is acceptable to kill or not kill. Political Correctness is
>> >> >about using excessive legal force to generate conformity with a
>> >> >political agenda by criminalizing previously minor innocuous behavior.
>> >> >Cop killing has never been minor innocuous behavior, neither has
>> >> >publishing music that advocated killing cops.
>> >> >
>> >> "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It is exactly offensive speech that is in greatest need of constitutional protection; no one objects to innocuous speech. Part of free speech is, of course, the right to object to the offensive speech of others. In a laissez faire economy, it is the marketplace that is supposed to decide what flies, not PC pressure upon corporate executives, from either political wing. Each wing has its own version of PC which it refuses to acknowledge as such, meanwhile lambasting the other wing for its PC-nesses. When people don't wanna hear music that is offensive to them, they won't buy it; when they don't wanna hear propagandizing list abuse, they will protest (speak against) and/or delete it.
>Which is why so many people have trash-canned your posts, Joe.
Yours have also been trashcanned by many; I've read where they've plonked you.
>> >
>> >There is a difference between offensive speech and sedition, Joe, as
>> >well as between simple offensive speech and advocating the commission of
>> >a capital crime by impressionable youngsters.
>> >
>> You mean that G. Gordon Liddy's explicit cop-killer instructions were not seditious, merely offensive (and probably not so to you, since they were directed at 'jackbooted government thugs, ayy, Mikey), yet Ice-T's musical description of a murderous event are seditious, not merely offensive? Could your distinctions here have anything to do with your knowledge of the sources and their political leanings more than the relative objective merits of whether each was or was not deserving of the sedition label? But of course; no one here would expect anything less of you - or anything more.
>G Gordon Liddy's comments were in reference to an incident of police
>illegally intering a law abiding citizens' residence, i.e. committing a
>felony, and therefore criminal activity. Ice-T was in reference to
>shooting a cop, any cop. There is a significant difference between the
>two that I would have thought that even you might possibly be
>intelligent enough to grasp. Apparently not.
Legality, or the lack of same, is to be determined by a court of law, not assumed by a guns-blazing antigovernment antipolice paranoid who does not care to first ascertain whether or not there exists a legal warrant for entry. But your shoot-first and attempt-to-justify later mindset, verbal and otherwise, is well known on this list.

Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:47 MDT