~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
But Con Law is a bit off topic for this group, eh? Let's agree to disagree.
Sure, I'll let you wiggle out of a discussion in which you were previously all to willing to participate. I don't think, though, that you should get off the hook so easily for your amazing--and unsupportable assault on free speech, to wit:
nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor benighted fools who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To assert otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.
I'd appreciate it if you would defend, retract or "explain" why I don't get to tell ANYONE that they should agree with my views of civil liberties. This is the third time I've addressed your curious statement. Please explain yourself. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~