Me (again): I am not debating with you the manner and method by which someone could be more effective or less effective in their speech. As I first mentioned in about post #44 or so, the right to speech is what is protected and which you seek to silence, unless it is according to YOUR personal preference.
I stand by these words, as well, your current deflection notwithstanding. See Calcowgirl's post #504; see also all posts to you concerning this matter up thread. They were to you, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
Me (again): I am not debating with you the manner and method by which someone could be more effective or less effective in their speech. As I first mentioned in about post #44 or so, the right to speech is what is protected and which you seek to silence, unless it is according to YOUR personal preference.
So what is the logical relationship between my question, "show me the evidence upon which you conclude that I am seeking to silence free speech," and your answer that you refuse to debate the manner and method of effective speech?
Are you once again equating talking about what's an effective way to speak with the right to speak at all?
Are you not ashamed to make accusations, such as that I "seek to silence free speech," and then when asked for your evidence, you whine that you "refuse" to debate me on a totally separate issue?
That's like accusing someone of stealing out of the cookie jar and, when asked for your evidence, you piously state that you "refuse" to debate them on whether chocolate chip cookies are better than lemon bars. Idiotic. Well, if you ever get up the gumption to try to back up your wild accusations with evidence, let me know. I know once you start thinking about it, it's quite embarrasing to realize that equating someone's disagreement with the manner and method of speaking with "seeking to silence constitutionally protected speech" gives you DixieChix brain, but there you go. And, come to think of it, since you disagree with me so vehemently (well, at least you disagree with even debating my point), under your logic, you are seeking to silence my free speech. That's not nice! But don't worry. Unlike you, I don't equate disagreement with speech with prohibition of speech. So, I'll be here if you ever want to try to make good on that big accusation you made.