[fightinJAG]

You are a broken record.

When are you going to quit repeating how it is someone’s right to make an arse out of themselves and tell us your view on the real issue upon which people can disagee: whether today’s protests were an effective making of an arse out of oneself.

You hold up something about which there is ZERO (just for you!) controversy-—that is, that the Constitution protects some freedom of speech-—and then pontificate as if you are enlightening the rest of us on . . . the, um, OBVIOUS.

We know each person has a right to speak their mind, as you endlessly spout.

That has NOTHING (there ya go again) to do with the point that is in controversy: whether this act of speech had a positive or negative overall effect.

Some people think it was positive, some negative. That is what the discussion is about. Not about how, in your mind, the very fact that people discuss this point is “forcing people to shut up.”

[Das Outsider]

Some people think it was positive, some negative. That is what the discussion is about. Not about how, in your mind, the very fact that people discuss this point is “forcing people to shut up.”

If it was positive, how so? If it was negative, what's the alternative? These are the questions we need to be asking--and answering. Getting into fights over what one might have implied or said between the lines--or said by not saying--isn't going to do anybody any good.

Cannibalism is usually not a good policy, unless one is the last man on the island.

[nicmarlo]

You are a broken record. When are you going to quit repeating how it is someone’s right to make an arse out of themselves and tell us your view on the real issue upon which people can disagee: whether today’s protests were an effective making of an arse out of oneself.

Sorry, but you are. See Calcowgirl's response at #504. It states exactly what I have been repeating to your broken record.