From arcturian1@earthlink.net Sat Jan 23 05:49:18 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: scott@SONIC.NET Received: (qmail 19416 invoked from network); 23 Jan 1999 05:50:09 -0000 Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (207.217.120.85) by buzz.sonic.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 1999 05:50:09 -0000 Received: from default (pool025-max4.ds6-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net [207.217.230.175]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA00413; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 21:50:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36A9630A.3D2B@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 21:50:02 -0800 From: Edmond Wollmann Reply-To: arcturian1@earthlink.net Organization: Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications SAN 299-5603 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scott@SONIC.NET, postmaster@SONIC.NET CC: legal@astroconsulting.com Subject: Copyright violations and defamation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 353 Lines: 11 Please remove all and any copyrighted photographs from your domain. http://www.skepticult.org/ Sincerely, Edmond Wollmann -- Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. © 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturian1/ From scott@sonic.net Sun Jan 24 09:01:20 1999 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:01:20 -0800 From: Scott Doty To: Edmond Wollmann Cc: postmaster@SONIC.NET, legal@astroconsulting.com Subject: Re: Copyright violations and defamation Message-ID: <19990124090120.A17768@sonic.net> References: <36A9630A.3D2B@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <36A9630A.3D2B@earthlink.net>; from Edmond Wollmann on Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:50:02PM -0800 Status: RO Content-Length: 6034 Lines: 143 --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:50:02PM -0800, Edmond Wollmann wrote: > Please remove all and any copyrighted photographs from your domain. > http://www.skepticult.org/ I suspect the copyright holders would object to such an action. Nevertheless -- though I don't exercise any editorial control over the site (as evident in the database from which you gleened my email address) -- I thought I would check it out anyway. Assuming, of course, that you meant "all and any" to mean material for which you might be able to command a blocking or removal action. A precursory survey of the URL that you indicated revealed only one image that might contain material that might be referred to by your use of the term "photograph." The image I found is available at the following URL: http://www.skepticult.org/pantihed.gif I have catalogued some properties of the image: 1) The image's dimensions are 400 pixels wide and 70 pixels high, thus covering a surface of 28000 pixels. The comment field says "Made with GIMP." 2) The image bears the following lines of text on a yellow background: a) In black large italic: *Truly Beautiful Panties* b) In small red italic: Click, here and now! c) In medium black upright: Mr. PantiHead sez, "I like 'em!" 3) The image includes a small black rule. 4) The image contains photographic information with the following properties: a) A rectangle containing all pixels of photographic information can be described with the following (x,y) coordinates (addressed from the top-left): (4,16) through (39,66). b) This rectangle's dimensions, then, are 35 pixels wide and 50 pixels high, thus covering a surface of 1750 pixels. (This does not take into account the shape of the head, or other factors -- doing so would obviously reduce the pixel count, perhaps as much as 25 percent.) c) The photographic information appears to be the image of a human hea= d. 5) This photographic information bears an alteration, most obvious, which was made by applying a new image which obscures the top part of the human head. 6) That new image appears to be a pair of panties. =20 Based on an appreciation of these elements in their context, it appears obvious that this image was designed as a satirical commentary. It also seems, clearly, to be a new work -- as to the type of work, I would probably call it a "collage" in casual conversation. This assessment, coupled with the fact that the photographic information contributes less than 6.25 percent of the total surface area of the image, seems clearly addressed within 17 USC 1, section 107. However, it's possible that the individual exercising editorial control over the web site may see things differently -- therefore, I will notify him of our discussion. Now, there is another matter. (And at this point, I will drop the conceit that your message was in good faith.) The subject line of your message reads: "Copyright violations and defamation". These are two different things, but your message covers only one of them -- and vaguely, at that. Nevertheless, you're probably referring to the image described above. I think you would have quite a challenge showing that Joe Average, cruising through the site, would take that image seriously -- much less that it's defamation. Heck, if anything, it's increasing your website's traffic. To quote a PR principle: "Say anything you like, as long as you spell my name right." Uh, sorry. Anyway, to illustrate what I'm talking about, consider the following web site: http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/benson/0408benson.shtml the subject of this satire responded thus: http://www.artbell.com/benson.html Please consider the difference between that response and yours. (Actually, that's about the time Art stopped taking himself so seriously -- and since then, Bell parody and satire seems to be in decline. Gee, do you think there could there be an effect here?) Now, if this complaint were an isolated incident, that would be one thing -- however, a web search evinces that you have a chronic habit trying to bully ISP's. This situation -- as seen with the copy to "postmaster@sonic.net" (with that copy to "legal@astroconsulting.com", yuk yuk) -- clearly shows your intent. My frank opinion is that you've learned a couple of intellectual property terms -- very stylish nowadays -- and that you are now spitefully shotgunning them to anyone you can find to see who you can intimidate. (Of course, this kind of activity is anathema to USENET culture -- and that is precisely the problem.) Indeed, it seems to me that your tactics constitute a program of self-defamation, one that erodes your own repute. That's a lot more to worry about than some college kids indulging in burlesque. I mean, sheesh: "Please remove all and any copyrighted photographs from your domain." That statement is positively proto-Zoosian, conceived in a giggle-farm. If that's the kind of thing you've been emailing sensible folks for the last umpteen years, then is there any mystery why you would be ridiculed? In short -- and in case no one has ever told you -- Newsflash: "He who says lots of ridiculous stuff, gets ridiculed." It says so in the manual, right over "Squealing about absurdities is ridiculous." Please consider this the next time you happen across a pantied pate. Hoping you found this message edifying, Scott Doty Nic Handle: SCD Technical Contact for Skep-Ti-Cult --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNqtR3QZu3xY3i6L1AQF6XAQAoR0ulcZzFoaXM/P4Xn+YErkdZw+tNZi1 9GfoHJByy6S1EhegtqpCgXWTIx6Cyk75tQjOiGCRCkMzSiiysLbDmOb9frY0zVc1 VgCM0n/isZ1oRya4tBVqQ4VkMqQfUCciHuVuTSDRRuJQJ4LT/78RuW2bHSEiBzl5 rKNlWDICkTo= =WqAn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1yeeQ81UyVL57Vl7-- From arcturian1@earthlink.net Sun Jan 24 20:13:48 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: scott@ponzo.sonic.net Received: (qmail 18196 invoked from network); 24 Jan 1999 20:13:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO buzz.sonic.net) (208.201.224.78) by ponzo.sonic.net with SMTP; 24 Jan 1999 20:13:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 2359 invoked by uid 504); 24 Jan 1999 20:14:49 -0000 Delivered-To: scott@sonic.net Received: (qmail 2352 invoked from network); 24 Jan 1999 20:14:49 -0000 Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (207.217.120.49) by buzz.sonic.net with SMTP; 24 Jan 1999 20:14:49 -0000 Received: from default (pool021-max2.ds7-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net [207.217.233.21]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA29519; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:14:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36AB7F26.16FD@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:14:30 -0800 From: "Wollmann, E. H." Reply-To: arcturian1@earthlink.net Organization: Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications SAN 299-5603 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Doty , postmaster@sonic.net CC: secadm@corp.earthlink.net Subject: Re: Copyright violations and defamation References: <36A9630A.3D2B@earthlink.net> <19990124090120.A17768@sonic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: RO Content-Length: 6555 Lines: 142 You have been duped by the propaganda spun by these abusers. I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone and marvel at you so-called professional's gullibility to defend these childish "wasted" sites and rationalization that a professional of 20 years "deserves" ridicule, attack on my accounts, and harassment simply because I report it. Good luck with your high goals. Scott Doty wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:50:02PM -0800, Edmond Wollmann wrote: > > Please remove all and any copyrighted photographs from your domain. > > http://www.skepticult.org/ > > I suspect the copyright holders would object to such an action. -- Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. © 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturian1/ From scott@sonic.net Mon Jan 25 01:31:09 1999 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:31:09 -0800 From: Scott Doty To: "Wollmann, E. H." Cc: postmaster@sonic.net, secadm@corp.earthlink.net Subject: Re: Copyright violations and defamation [Sonic #14112] Message-ID: <19990125013109.A19823@sonic.net> References: <36A9630A.3D2B@earthlink.net> <19990124090120.A17768@sonic.net> <36AB7F26.16FD@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <36AB7F26.16FD@earthlink.net>; from Wollmann, E. H. on Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:14:30PM -0800 Status: RO Content-Length: 4616 Lines: 122 --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:14:30PM -0800, Wollmann, E. H. wrote: > You have been duped by the propaganda spun by these abusers. Odd, that you'd refer to them as "abusers," when the only "abuse" has been shown to be protected speech. > I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone and marvel > at you so-called professional's gullibility to defend these > childish "wasted" sites Thank you for your opinion -- not because I agree or disagree, but because it demonstrates, clearly, that you thought it might matter when evaluating the speech of your critics. Because that "gullibility" of "[us] so-called professionals" (as you put it) is this: I will defend free, protected speech, whether or not I agree with it; I do that not only because propriety demands this, but because that _duty_ is demanded by the right. The picture now seems clear: You hope to silence your critics with bullying tactics, failing to understand a basic right of human beings, both self-evident and universally declared. You attempt to overwhelm administrators with accusation after wild accusation, hoping to burden them until they say "to hell with it" and cave in. And -- when that doesn't work -- you pump them full of hyperbole about how the sites are 'childish "wasted" sites'. You look down your oh-so professional nose at us poor "so-called" professionals, as if you were some arbiter of what material is correct and not correct. In case it hasn't sunk in: until you are crowned King Wollmann IV, your opinion on someone else's protected speech doesn't matter. And you know what? I'm not even offended that you would think that gambit would work with me, because it's just the kind of thing I would expect from a Net.Kook. > and rationalization that a professional of 20 years "deserves" ridicule, No, I said "is there any mystery why you would be ridiculed?" In other words: who wouldn't expect to be ridiculed if they embarked on such a campaign of ridiculous activities? I never said anything about "deserves" -- in fact, I outlined how you could curtail ridicule, in the off chance that you might actually take my advice. Of course, if this discussion is any guide, it is clear *now* that your _statements_ and _opinions_ certainly deserve ridicule. (And if that reflects upon the writer, maybe you shouldn't say and do silly things?) It doesn't matter if you're a "professional of 20 years" or the Pope in Rome: being ridiculous attracts ridicule. That's not just human nature, it's practically a tautology. > attack on my accounts, and harassment simply because I report it. It is now obvious that your report was frivolous, designed to intimidate me or my ISP. Who is "harassing" whom here? "Please remove all and any copyrighted photographs from your domain." InDEED, sir, this was no "report" -- it was a ludicrous _demand_, one deserving extreme derision. Now, had your "report" been in good faith, that would be one thing -- folks forget to qualify their statements all the time. (Nobody's perfect.) But in your case, I'm sorry to say that your reputation precedes you. Vague demands and "Cc: legal@jhw.sockpuppet" don't even merit a *reply*, much less one with any useful information. Further, calling the inevitable reply "attack on my accounts, and harassment" is just too much -- clearly, another EHW scattershot attack. You seem to be progressing down a list: "Copyright violations and defamation", "Attack[s] on [your] accounts and harrassment", _____[X?]_____ The "X?" on the blank line represents your next vague, groundless accusation. Gee, what *will* that be? The answer seems too easy: "trafficking in obscenity (and/or) child pornography." That way, you will have circumnavigated all the big ISP no-no's. > Good luck with your high goals. Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. BTW, I see you've forwarded my message to "secadm@corp.earthlink.net" without my consent, so it seems clear you don't regard this discussion as a private communication. That's fine -- I have no problem with making it public. (Alea iacta est!) Scott Doty Nic Handle: SCD Technical Contact for Skep-Ti-Cult http://www.skepticult.org --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNqw52wZu3xY3i6L1AQHm2gP/R9oyLnkI2kH1HmNtrozPfC/f9p/s/Fhf 8phcfsUfyhnP139msYrcPP/obRu8pMo5fxw3zEPwt2Lp7e5+H6Sy1WoItKSgGOGR wYpuOyup00c6PMrWA7od5kc4f62H+ntHGwC0R6t7EwwfRgBoyoD0B7rPGox4lVgj XNwR73yNW0M= =skb2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8-- From arcturian1@earthlink.net Mon Jan 25 16:42:56 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: scott@ponzo.sonic.net Received: (qmail 21478 invoked from network); 25 Jan 1999 16:42:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO buzz.sonic.net) (208.201.224.78) by ponzo.sonic.net with SMTP; 25 Jan 1999 16:42:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 11933 invoked by uid 504); 25 Jan 1999 16:44:02 -0000 Delivered-To: scott@sonic.net Received: (qmail 11926 invoked from network); 25 Jan 1999 16:44:02 -0000 Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (207.217.120.22) by buzz.sonic.net with SMTP; 25 Jan 1999 16:44:02 -0000 Received: from default (pool121-pm2.ds34-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.33.121]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA13295; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36AC9F3A.3D@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:43:38 -0800 From: "Wollmann, E. H." Reply-To: arcturian1@earthlink.net Organization: Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications SAN 299-5603 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-NSCP (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Doty CC: postmaster@sonic.net, secadm@corp.earthlink.net Subject: Re: Copyright violations and defamation [Sonic #14112] References: <36A9630A.3D2B@earthlink.net> <19990124090120.A17768@sonic.net> <36AB7F26.16FD@earthlink.net> <19990125013109.A19823@sonic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: RO Content-Length: 8117 Lines: 180 This will be my first and last request that you cease mailing me this defensiveness and either take action or don't. I will follow up with whatever actions I deem necessary. I will refute this one unbelievably childish attack. I see now why your abuser is supported by you. Scott Doty wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:14:30PM -0800, Wollmann, E. H. wrote: > > You have been duped by the propaganda spun by these abusers. > Odd, that you'd refer to them as "abusers," when the only "abuse" > has been shown to be protected speech. I see, so defamation laws were created because? What would motivate a person such as yourself to argue vehemently for the ability for someone to create a site that serves no reasonable purpose other than to further an agenda of denigration, defamation and harassment of someone they don't even know? Wouldn't be my choice of professional careers now would it? > > I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone and marvel > > at you so-called professional's gullibility to defend these > > childish "wasted" sites > Thank you for your opinion -- not because I agree or disagree, but > because it demonstrates, clearly, that you thought it might matter > when evaluating the speech of your critics. Copyright doesn't care what the violation is. It has nothing to do with free speech rights. And defamation has been legally defined thus; Defamation= Injuring someone's character or reputation by making false and malicious statements about him to other people. The law recognizes a difference between defamation and mere criticism of an individual. Criticism deals only with matters that legitimately invite public attention or call for public comment. In contrast, defamation usually involves a person's private life and domestic affairs. Calling a woman a prostitute or a banker an embezzler, or an astrologer or consultant a fraud on a television, radio or usenet public forum are examples of defamation. The term defamation includes both libel and slander. This is ALL that these so-called "critics" on usenet have done. There have been no real arguments. For you to defend nonsense under the guise of legitimate criticism speaks volumes of your level not only psychologically but with reference to integrity as well. > Because that "gullibility" of "[us] so-called professionals" (as you > put it) is this: I will defend free, protected speech, whether or not > I agree with it; I do that not only because propriety demands this, > but because that _duty_ is demanded by the right. Here is the constitutional article you are lowering the standard of; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The key word is peaceably, which reflects the founding fathers understanding of the difference in recognizing intentions with integrity and not wild revolt whenever they wished. By the same token, free speech is not wild abuse of the truth to serve negative ends. This is why defamation, libel and other laws are in place. You would defend someone yelling fire in a crowded theater then regardless of consequences-I see. It reminds me of the gun advocates who say that "the right to bear arms" is the same as what the constitution REALLY says which is that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We have a well regulated militia-its called the armed services. I could go on refuting your attempt to spin the revered constitution into something that justifies your insecurity, negativity and rationalization for maintaining the Internet at the garbage level-but I have work to do. I suggest you take a few logic course to hone your skills in recognizing fallacious defects in your own arguments. Take action or don't. I will act in whatever way I feel is appropriate and/or required based on that. A word to the wise is sufficient. Therefore I will accept no further denigration from you. Sincerely, Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. > The picture now seems clear: > > You hope to silence your critics with bullying tactics, failing to > understand a basic right of human beings, both self-evident and > universally declared. [...earlier message snipped.../sd] -- Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A. © 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603 Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/ Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/ http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturian1/ From scott@sonic.net Wed Jan 27 00:09:44 1999 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:09:44 -0800 From: Scott Doty To: "Wollmann, E. H." Cc: postmaster@sonic.net, secadm@corp.earthlink.net Subject: Re: Copyright violations and defamation [Sonic #14112] Message-ID: <19990127000944.A21868@sonic.net> References: <36A9630A.3D2B@earthlink.net> <19990124090120.A17768@sonic.net> <36AB7F26.16FD@earthlink.net> <19990125013109.A19823@sonic.net> <36AC9F3A.3D@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <36AC9F3A.3D@earthlink.net>; from Wollmann, E. H. on Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:43:38AM -0800 Status: RO Content-Length: 5390 Lines: 181 First things first. If you: 1) Have a good faith complaint of copyright infringment or defamation (aka "unprotected speech"), and 2) Give me a URL to the file, image, or whatever that's causing the problem, then I will look at it and evaluate it objectively and fairly to the best of my abilities. In fact, I even did so in the first half of my first message (after _guessing_ at the file). HOWEVER, if you 1) Attempt a false claim of infringment and/or defamation, a) with vague, if any, evidence, b) in poor faith, c) couched ludicrous language, AND THEN 2) Forward the inevitable reply a) thus making it a public discussion by mutual consent, b) (which is lucky for you -- ref. California Civil Code section 985) AND THEN 3) Conduct a discussion in which you present the following against all participants: a) Slander b) Libel AND THEN 4) Have the audacity to stick your hand up and say "alrighty, all done here, next," in a message carrying the majority of (3a) and (3b). then I will express my displeasure. If you have any questions about this dispensation, it would be my pleasure to answer any good faith inquiries in good faith. This is the last message you will receive from me (unless you initiate a new contact). Good day. -Scott THE FOLLOWING IS FOR THOSE OTHER READERS WHO MAY BE AMUSED. IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT FOR EDMOND H. WOLLMANN. EDMOND H. WOLLMAN, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING. DON'T! OR ELSE! I SAID, "OR ELSE!"!!@! DON'T, DO IT, MAN! I'M WARNING YOU! On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:43:38AM -0800, Wollmann, E. H. wrote: > This will be my first and last request that you cease mailing me this > defensiveness and either take action or don't. OOOoooh no you don't. When you go camping, do you beat on hornet's nests, and then whine when you're stung? YOU knocked on MY door, and played "The Boy who Cried Wollmann" games. Us "so-called professionals" are an ornery lot -- we don't like Net.Kooks trying to push us around. Dig? > I will follow up with whatever actions I deem necessary. I will refute > this one unbelievably childish attack. I see now why your abuser is > supported by you. Mercy, sir. Oh, woe is me -- had I only been notified properly! If only I wielded editorial control of that darnded site! Alas, I am undone! (ziiiip) > Copyright doesn't care what the violation is. It has nothing to do with > free speech rights. I thank thee for the lesson. However, I have consulted the Great Elders -- whose wisdom is reknown -- and they spake unto me, saying: "Thy Use is Fair." > The law recognizes a difference between defamation and mere criticism > of an individual. Indeed, and the law -- thankfully -- includes Common Law, an invention we imported from Merry old England! (and God save the Queen.) > This is ALL that these so-called "critics" on usenet have done. skepticult.org is a _web_ _site_. USENET is a much different beastie. > For you to defend nonsense under the guise of legitimate criticism > speaks volumes of your level not only psychologically but with > reference to integrity as well. Woops, quick integrity checkup... "Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution -- these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little -- weaken it a little over the course of a century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." -Mark Twain Yup, integrity still intact. How's yours? > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or of abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEably to > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." > The key word is peaceably PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE. This is a clause directed towards riots. And I assure you, sir, that web site is not a riot! > which reflects the founding fathers understanding of the difference > in recognizing intentions with integrity and not wild revolt > whenever they wished to pursue a course of action which I didn't > agree with, so there. I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. > By the same token, free speech is not wild abuse of the > truth to serve negative ends. . . . . Er, sorry about the outage -- my irony circuits just scrammed. Let me just sweep this up... (In cases of libel and slander, "truth is a complete defense"; who determines "negative ends"; "wild abuse": circulus in demonstrando.) Sorry, that was quite a train wreck. What were you saying? Oh yeah: > You would defend someone yelling fire in a crowded theater then > regardless of consequences-I see If there were a fire? Certainly. Meanwhile, I assume you'd sit there, smugly silent, while the audience is converted into a screaming alpha conflagration? That's _not_ funny Ed -- even you wouldn't do something that foolish. > It reminds me of the gun advocates who > say that "the right to bear arms" is the same as what the constitution > REALLY says which is that ... Er, nevermind, you probably would. > I suggest you take a few logic course to hone your skills in > recognizing fallacious defects in your own arguments. Will they teach me how to get from panties to gun control in two messages? That would be Cool. -Scott