[Vision2020] If You Look Young, Don't Buy Spray Paint ;-)

[Tony]

Doug, hopelessly childish, petulant, mocking, smirking, stupid, inane, 
tiresome and utterly vapid comments are of course in the eye of the 
beholder.  And couching such speech in clever and subtler rhetoric hardly 
makes it less cutting.  Perhaps Keely unconsciously recognizes a less 
polished version of her own style in your postings.

Best,  -T
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
To: <heirdoug at netscape.net>; <london at moscow.com>; <sslund at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] If You Look Young, Don't Buy Spray Paint ;-)


> Here's an example of legitimate speech:  When someone writes hopelessly
> childish, petulant, mocking, smirking, stupid, inane, tiresome and utterly
> vapid comments regarding things he knows nothing about.  "Legitimate 
> speech"
> can and often is all of those things.  Your work certainly is.
>
> keely
>
>
> From: heirdoug at netscape.net
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com, london at moscow.com, sslund at adelphia.net
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] If You Look Young, Don't Buy Spray Paint ;-)
> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:08:06 -0500
>
> Thank you Keely, Saundra, and Bill,
>
> For making my point.
>
> I have one question. Could either of you three individually, or as a 
> chorus,
> please define "legitimate speech"? And is "that qualifier" found some 
> where
> in the Constitiution? (I guess that would be two questions)
>
> Do you, as the "collective" voices and poster children of the Intoeristas,
> define what is legitimate and what is illegitimate? When will we know for
> sure which it is? I would like to get that memo. (I guess that makes 4
> questions in toto, Sorry I learned to count in public school)
>
> I await your senergy sayings with stillness! If you wish you can send your
> answers to Decopauge to color coordinate them!
>
> lemeno, Doug
>
>
>
> And for Saundra, my thanks for posting that again. What great publicity 
> for
> the lunacy of the left. And from the left!
>
> And just because you can't read Right-Mind.... I will be posting may of
> Dale's profound wisdom and computer prowess regularly..
>
> My first installment:
>
> Free Speech Redux
> For my readers who havenâ?Tt seen this before, Bill London wrote a Daily
> News â?oTown Crierâ? column back on 14 Sept. 2005 (Donâ?Tt Bury Free 
> Speech
> In Friendship Square) where he argued that scrawling â?oHitler Youthâ? in
> chalk in front of NSA is â?olegitimate and legal speechâ?.
> In Venom2020 today, he stands fully by that column.
> I stand by what I wrote. It is legitimate to use chalk on a public 
> sidewalk
> to present your political message.
> It is not legitimate to use spray paint on private property to present you
> gang wannabe message.
> If you can't see the difference, I suggest you take a few moments to read
> the Bill of Rights
> First, maybe it is Londonâ?Ts turn to read that Amendment again. Where 
> does
> the qualifier â?olegitimate speechâ? come from? Is it only our 
> Intoleristas
> who are arbiters of what is legitimate speech or not? Given their actions
> over the last four years, I would say so.
> Second, in the 27 Sept 2005 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News,
> Michael Oâ?TNeal wrote the following:
> In his recent Town Crier column (Opinion, Sept. 14), Bill London smugly 
> and
> triumphantly demonstrates that the â?oHitler Youthâ? graffiti at New 
> Saint
> Andrews College fails to rise to the level of vandalism and in fact is
> legally protected free speech.
> One can only marvel, breathlessly, at the hypocrisy of this position. The
> issue is not about whether this malicious act meets some legal definition.
> The issue is much larger and is no less than the ongoing bigotry and
> two-facedness of some elements of our community. London knows that if
> someone had scrawled â?oRagheadsâ? on the sidewalk outside the Muslim
> center, or â?oN----r loversâ? outside a human rights office, we would 
> never
> hear the end of it â?" and rightly so. Perhaps such acts, too, would not
> legally be crimes, but they would deserve the censure of the community, 
> not
> labored and trivial defenses.
> In my view, this Town Crier column is more hateful than the original act
> that prompted it.
> Michael J. Oâ?TNeal, Moscow
> Hypocrisy is exactly right. Even the Moscow Human Rights Commission
> denounced this act. They did not trumpet it as an expression of
> â?olegitimate speech.â?
> Again: thank you Bill London. I couldn't have paid an Intolerista to say 
> the
> things in the paper that you did. You made it black-and-white to everyone 
> in
> Moscow what the real nature of the Intolerista attacks is all about -- and
> it's not about a love for the code.
>
> And thanks for saying it again (and againâ?¦). Can I recommend that you
> write another column in the Daily News trumpeting this position? Please?
>
>
>
> Published Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:05 PM
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading
> spam and email virus protection.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo - buy and sell with people
> you know
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================