Limbaugh: Is free speech dead?

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...

You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1

Tom Sherman

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes
decide everything." - Joseph Stalin

Mr. Sherman is becoming as bad as that Mazzelini character; he is a
one note Johnny. If I have to hear from him one more time about how
Gore should have won the election if it had not been stolen from him
by Bush, I will just about go out of my mind. Talk about monomanias!
My feeling about the last general election was that it was so close
that we could have flipped a coin to decide the matter. But God
Himself intervened and saw too it that the election went to Bush
knowing what lay in store for America (9/11). Let us all be eternally
grateful that Gore never became President. It would have been just
more of Clinton. What a disaster that would have been.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Who are these disenfranchised?

I'm thinking primarily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
death of Medgar Evers.

You are right, Mr. Larrington, the Blacks were not technically
disenfranchised and that is the important thing to keep in mind. The
problem that existed could have been technically fixed with out all
the hullabaloo of the civil rights movement. The beauty of our
democracies (I am including the Brits in this exalted company)) is
that there are ways of going about fixing things. Maybe we should all
take refresher courses in Poly Sci 101.

When folks take to the streets to protest it is to the diminishment of
democracy. In any event, I am opposed to any kind of direct democracy,
most especially in the form of street warfare. I favor representative
democracy, which normally goes by the name of republican forms of
government.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message ...

Edward Dolan wrote:

Who are these disenfranchised?

I'm thinking primarily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while black
Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering to
vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending up
with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing the
status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread public
protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It was,
after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the
death of Medgar Evers.

You are right, Mr. Larrington, the Blacks were not technically
disenfranchised and that is the important thing to keep in mind. The
problem that existed could have been technically fixed with out all
the hullabaloo of the civil rights movement. The beauty of our
democracies (I am including the Brits in this exalted company)) is
that there are ways of going about fixing things. Maybe we should all
take refresher courses in Poly Sci 101.

When folks take to the streets to protest it is to the diminishment of
democracy. In any event, I am opposed to any kind of direct democracy,
most especially in the form of street warfare. I favor representative
democracy, which normally goes by the name of republican forms of
government.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Ken Kobayashi wrote in message . ..

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke"
wrote:

The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

Not true. According to jargon.net:

troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.
Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes
from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails
bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed
troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make
themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly
conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a
deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on
it.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

Thanks Ken for the input. I have never been a troll despite what some
others think on this newsgroup. I always mean mostly sincerely
everything I say in my posts. But this newsgroup is so liberal that
they can't believe what they are hearing and so think me to be a
troll. Nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly, I am too old
and do not have the time to be playing childish games via trolling. I
leave that to the teenagers (which I suspect are quite rare on ARBR).

I believe the best example of a troll on this newsgroup is Mazzoleni
who is always expounding on his virtues as a roadie compared to
recumbent cyclists. But even he might be sincere. Who knows? Hell,
sometimes I think Mr. Tom Sherman is a troll!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Ken Kobayashi wrote in message . ..

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke"
wrote:

The origin of troll in the newsgroup sense is as a verb. It's a
reference to the method of fishing. Except for the lurkers,
we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

Not true. According to jargon.net:

troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.
Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes
from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails
bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed
troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make
themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly
conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a
deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on
it.

Ken Kobayashi

http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

Thanks Ken for the input. I have never been a troll despite what some
others think on this newsgroup. I always mean mostly sincerely
everything I say in my posts. But this newsgroup is so liberal that
they can't believe what they are hearing and so think me to be a
troll. Nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly, I am too old
and do not have the time to be playing childish games via trolling. I
leave that to the teenagers (which I suspect are quite rare on ARBR).

I believe the best example of a troll on this newsgroup is Mazzoleni
who is always expounding on his virtues as a roadie compared to
recumbent cyclists. But even he might be sincere. Who knows? Hell,
sometimes I think Mr. Tom Sherman is a troll!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Dave Larrington wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:

Who are these disenfranchised?

I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while
black
Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering
to
vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending
up
with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing
the
status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread
public
protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It
was,
after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and
the
death of Medgar Evers.

You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1

Tom Sherman

That would almost match the thousands of overseas military votes thrown out
which a majority leaned toward Bush

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Dave Larrington wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:

Who are these disenfranchised?

I'm thinking primarlily of the US Civil Rights movement. Now while
black
Americans, particularly in the in the south, were not /technically/
disenfranchised, they often had considerable difficulty in registering
to
vote, still more in actually casting their ballots, and probably ending
up
with an "elected representative" with little or no interest in changing
the
status quo. It seems to me fairly unlikely that without widespread
public
protest, change would have come very much more slowly, if at all. It
was,
after all, almost a hundred years between the end of the Civil War and
the
death of Medgar Evers.

You forgot to mention the thousands of primarily black voters removed
from the election roles in Florida, throwing the election to G. W. Bush.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1

Tom Sherman

That would almost match the thousands of overseas military votes thrown out
which a majority leaned toward Bush

"Ken Kobayashi" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke"
wrote:
Except for the lurkers,
we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

As stated by Eugene Miya, net.ranger (who invented/discovered
the form "FAQ").

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl...kstar.ucsc.edu

[see the entire thread for an interesting discussion]

Not true. According to jargon.net:

troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.

Yes, of course, that's the distinction of content and in the
eye of the beholder (or moderator in moderated newsgroups).
There's a broad spectrum. The pejorative sense of trolling is
at one end and clearly so.

Any mention of BikeE was bait for Bob Cardone at one point
in ARBR history. %^)

Jon Meinecke

"Ken Kobayashi" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:13:46 GMT, "Jon Meinecke"
wrote:
Except for the lurkers,
we're all trolling,-- posting messages that elicit responses.

As stated by Eugene Miya, net.ranger (who invented/discovered
the form "FAQ").

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl...kstar.ucsc.edu

[see the entire thread for an interesting discussion]

Not true. According to jargon.net:

troll /v.,n./ [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a
posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.

Yes, of course, that's the distinction of content and in the
eye of the beholder (or moderator in moderated newsgroups).
There's a broad spectrum. The pejorative sense of trolling is
at one end and clearly so.

Any mention of BikeE was bait for Bob Cardone at one point
in ARBR history. %^)

Jon Meinecke