10 May '06 21:13>
Originally posted by ivanhoeGet lost, troll.
Maraudian BS.
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Funny - I could say the same to you. After all, it was you who started with the "Since you dont understand ..." bit which, as I said, sounds like an SDR defence.
1. Your "Decoder Ring" crap was an insult and you know it. Stick with discussing the matter or stop playing the martyr when you get back what you dish out.
2. We most certainly DID NOT start there. We started with some claim that the RCC or Opus Dei or somebody could maintain an action to stop the showing of a film because its content displeases them. ...[text shortened]... article on the right to privacy was REALLY concerned with libel/slander! Amazing but typical.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI wouldn't mind reading the arguments of the case without arguing over the legality of it.
1. Funny - I could say the same to you. After all, it was you who started with the "Since you dont understand ..." bit which, as I said, sounds like an SDR defence.
2a. Follow the sub-thread, no1.
2b. My restatement is a logical synthesis of the arguments you've put forward. If you want to backtrack and change any of your assertions, feel free t ...[text shortened]... ; but it certainly does not seem to respect the equally fundamental right to privacy much.
Originally posted by lucifershammerA) You don't know what you're talking about and constantly show a profound ignorance of Fundamental Rights theory, even though I have tried to explain it to you and, more importantly, have cited to the relevant important works. Saying YOU don't understand Fundamental Rights theory isn't a SDR; that's sooooooooooo stupid it could only come from your keyboard.
1. Funny - I could say the same to you. After all, it was you who started with the "Since you dont understand ..." bit which, as I said, sounds like an SDR defence.
2a. Follow the sub-thread, no1.
2b. My restatement is a logical synthesis of the arguments you've put forward. If you want to backtrack and change any of your assertions, feel free t ...[text shortened]... ; but it certainly does not seem to respect the equally fundamental right to privacy much.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn RC theology, as I recall, contrition for a sin and a sincere desire to try to avoid it
You know this is wrong, yet you do it anyway. Are you sorry for this sin?
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I'm as ignorant of Fundamental Rights theory as you claim - then educate me. So far, all you've given me is "Freedom of Speech ain't very free if Big Daddy can say you're allowed to say this but not that". Tell me, who's confusing 'inalienable' and 'absolute' rights now?
A) You don't know what you're talking about and constantly show a profound ignorance of Fundamental Rights theory, even though I have tried to explain it to you and, more importantly, have cited to the relevant important works. Saying YOU don't understand Fundamental Rights theory isn't a SDR; that's sooooooooooo stupid it could only come from your keybo ...[text shortened]... he village gossips and it would be consistent with the First Amendment.