The Council of Trent Goes to the Mattresses in the Crossfire of John D's and Bart Birdsall's Nitpicking Joust; May God or at Least Buddha Have Mercy on the Souls of All Involved Braccae tuae aperiuntur
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "John D Gets His Comeuppance; Bart Strikes Back; Le...":
People aren't busy refuting his nonsense. No one ever does.
Posted by Anonymous to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 3:57 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "John D Gets His Comeuppance; Bart Strikes Back; Le...":
People aren't busy refuting his nonsense. No one ever does.
Posted by Anonymous to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 3:57 AM
From: Anonymous [mailto:noreply-comment@blogger.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:55 AM
To: tdecesar@tampabay.rr.com
Subject: [Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch] New comment on Playbook for Griffin's Challengers.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Playbook for Griffin's Challengers":
Lee,
John D. makes no sense. I follow the law in which Freedom of Speech reigns except when it incites violence. He is trying to find holes in which to nitpick and say, "Gotcha!" which is what he does with you too to try to prove you are a liar. He needs to look at the bigger picture. I am an Aquarius and the big picture is what is important, not details. Details are for maids or servants to look into. I don't have time in my life for details. I always have my focus on the bigger picture. Besides, the First Amendment is upheld in most court cases except when it has incited someone to violence. That is the law. John D. must not know that. So I think homophobes can say, write, and do what they want as long as what they do does not cause someone to literally harass or physically harm a gay student or adult. Basically, I follow the law in my ethics. I have argued, debated, etc. with Ronda Storms and others, and they better be ready to argue, but they have the right to their opinions.
He can split hairs all he wants to make himself feel big, but in the end I am not going to respond to someone who admits to not reading my whole post. Basically, he's saying, "I don't want to read the rest of your post which you took the time to write and obviously want me to read, because I don't want to have to address those points. Instead, I will nitpick at some minor point that is a side tangent to the bigger argument or picture." There is no point in debating with someone like that.
When he can stand in a boxing ring (metaphor) and duke it out with people in power over him and remain standing like I did, then he can come talk to me, but I have a feeling this John D. wouldn't have the guts to do the things I have done in my life. I don't just write emails. I duke it out face to face with people over issues, often with people no one else would mess with. I wonder if he does.
Bart
Publish this comment.
Reject this comment.
Moderate comments for this blog.
Posted by Anonymous to Lee Drury De Cesare's Casting-Room Couch at 3:55 AM
10 comments:
When I made the post, I had read no further, Bart. My point was that irregularities stood out and I had questions before going any further. I'm sorry that you misconstrued this.
How many times were you in your metaphorical boxing ring and said "Oh, I'm not going to duke it out with you"? You say there's no point debating with someone like me who nitpicks over things; Lee's punctuation pettiness must have you fairly reeling!
I find it strange that you don't like this nitpicking business, yet you were pushing for certain wording in a harassment policy. I'd like to know what the wording was and the wording you were duking it out for.
Tell you what; you're all for freedom of speech until someone gets harassed. Define harassment for me. Duke it out with me. If you can't handle duking it out with some nitpicking emailer, I would find it hard to believe that you duke it out with the Mike Tysons of the world.
Is the First Amendment upheld in courts when someone feels harassed? You mention that it is not upheld when it incites violence, but what about harassment? I look forward to your expert comment.
He just tries to keep people busy with refuting his nonsense. Busy work. He's a troll for whom you should waste not a second of energy. I'm sorry I even took the time to tell him to f off. He wasn't worth that.
Let him go tempt others into wasting time on him. Eventually he will. There is nothing gained nor lost by talking w/ him. Except valuable time wasted. Good call, Bart.
Hey, Lee, Ziggy wrote this recently:
Lee once said, "The first amendment doesn't require that one speak in dulcet tones and sugar-candy diction."
If gay students can't handle a lack of dulcet tones and sugar-candy diction, are homophobes still permitted to speak freely? Or is this a flag on the play in your opinion?
>Besides, the First Amendment is upheld in most court cases except when it has incited someone to violence. That is the law.<
Can someone please direct me to which part of the law dictates this?
People aren't busy refuting his nonsense. No one ever does.
speech which incites violence or is considered 'fighting words' is one of several exceptions to the free speech amendment. I'll send you my bill.
john_d, I have a first and last question for you, madame.
Are you ambulatory?
Perhaps Vox would like to define harassment. Or would she like to throw in the metaphorical towel also?
Bart says the homophobes can do and say what they like as long as gay students are not harassed. How does he feel about Lee de Cesare? Is she allowed to say and do what she likes under her freedom of speech umbrella as long as nobody is harassed?
You antinitpickers are all for stopping harassment right up until someone asks you what it actually is.
Madame John_D first tell whether you are ambulatory.
Yes, I am ambulatory. I'm sure that there is something that you deem witty or clever marching with ill-deserved confidence towards the conversation.
I'll pay your bill when you can direct me to the part of the law that supports your claim. What do you make of the following, bozo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Now, Vox, define harassment. Or are you whimpering out of the ring? You're as bad as Bart make me out to be when I wrote that I hadn't read any further in his post. You've made up your mind that you won't be asking me any more questions.
Is this your towel here in the ring, Vox? Vox? Vo--ox?
Post a Comment