"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote


So, what you're saying is that free speech can only be defended by
beating
someone up.....or being beaten up.....in a face to face confrontation?
But then, it isn't really punishment, is it? I guess I probably wouldn't
tell you to your face that the logic you display above is twisted.
Personally, I think that isn't necessarily a matter of balls. At any
rate, it looks as if you'll have to sue me.



When I reread my post I felt it came close enough to saying what I feel,

Yeah, I think so too.

with the possible exception of two words .."social" and "punishment"
Maybe replacing the first with " Karma" and ... I'm floundering trying to
replace the second ... "just deserves" maybe.

Karma.....ah yes, now there's nice rational and easily quantifiable measure
by which to determine how to deal with people......and yes, you are indeed
floundering. Cheap clones of ratiocination will do that to you. As for who
deserves what, that's all well and good as long as we have you around to
make these determinations for us......but the internet is a big place. What
do we do when you decide your services are more urgently needed elsewhere?

I believe that those few that need to be abusive on the Internet (
reliably,
continually abusive, not just the rare bad day ) would very likely find
their own lives improving if they stopped.

This runs counter to current theory in psychology as well as common sense.
Ceasing whatever fills a need is usually not a good thing. Now, if you had
suggested that people who tend to abusiveness when there is no need, I'd
have agreed. But, you didn't, did you?

And not just their Internet
lives, since our various parts don't exist independent of each other.

Well, many of us exist quite nicely, thank you very much, with at least a
modicum of geographic independence betwixt our heads and our asses. I can
see no good reason that this sort of partial separation can't be extended to
various of our activities as well.

People that have that much hate bottled up get/got it from somewhere and
really need to address the real source not just lash out where they feel
it's safe, imho.

First, I've seen no hint of humility in any of your opinions. That's not
even cute.

Beyond that, you're right about this much, at least. And they all find
their way here sooner or later. Dina Temple-Raston wrote (of theChristian
Identity Movement) that it; "...inflated the self-importance of otherwise
unremarkable young men, often with disastrous results. I gave them a way to
find someone thay hated more than themselves.."*

Lose the adjective "young" and you've got a perfect description of Usenet.

Oh, and, I make no claims to real legal knowledge....

No? But you DO advocate free speech for those who agree with you and
physical violence for those who don't.

Slightly new topic:

I just got back from my daily bike ride. The country roads around here
limit me to two possible hour long loops on roads remotely safe for a
bike,
and both go past dozens of properties with dogs. Each loop goes past only
ONE property with dogs that are consistently, reliably, a pain in the ass
chasing me.

I've checked and double checked with various law enforcement departments,
and this county has a law that says I can kill one of those dogs, if it's
on
the road attacking me ( although when I asked the sheriff I was told that
a
pistol was a bad idea because it was still illegal to shoot from or on the
road, so I'd have to bludgeon them to death, I guess.) Or, I can
personally issue a citizens arrest to the owner, for each occurrence ( one
dog is an occurrence, two chasing me is two, two dogs two days is 4 etc )
having a fine of $140. Or, I can call animal control with the address and
they will issue the citation, on my word, with the same fines.

Now, that seems like a very stringent set of laws to me, maybe too
stringent
and severe. Certainly it would be sad if the one day in years that a dog
normally well controlled by it's owner gets loose and chases a bike, it
was
therefore killed or it's actually responsible owner fined. Yet, I have no
sympathy for the consistent problems , and although right now pepper spray
is my weapon, I'm prepared to go further.

But, let's all think about the fact that the 99.9% of the people that have
the human decency and sense of social contract to control their animals
and
NOT the ones that made the law necessary.

The few nearly always cause the LEGAL restrictions ( as opposed to social
contract/ moral restrictions) of personal behavior that we are all forced
to
live under. In a similar vein, when legislation is passed controlling
what
can be said here, it's NOT going to be because of those in the majority,
that have adult levels of self discipline while ONline.

The greatest defense of free speech may very well be to use it
responsibly.

Lovely sermon. Horse****.....but very pretty horse****.

Wolfgang