Replies

Let me try to clarify why we aren't communicating. You are the one that focused in on this "interrupt" concept. I didn't. That was not my focus, nor was it what "we were talking solely about."

I sincerely believe you have confused me with someone else. I have ONLY responded to the "interrupt" concept when you and your ilk kept asking me to.

nicmarlo asked me 124 and I responded 211.

So what? It was never central to my point, which I finally decided to set out for the record at 691.

I continually restated that my focus was NOT on what was allowed in terms of free speech, 227,, yet nicmarlo came back anyway, 228, and demanded that somehow I had to address a statement made by a poster whom I had never even heard of before and who was making a point that was completely irrelevant to my own point on MANNER and METHOD.

The next thing I know nic is claiming, 319, that because I posted to him when he responded to the guy who made the "interrupted" comment, that I "twisted" the discussion by . . . talking about something else?

Well, duh. I made my own point, a different point, one that had nothing to do with what K. said, but with what nicmarlo said.

Seems like a pretty normal way for a thread to develop, but . . .

There are no other even peeps out of me about the "interruption" issue you now claim I have been solely focused on. Until, that is . . .

You of all people then jumped in and claimed, 387, that:

You have twisted this every which way except as posted by the originator of the argument (KeithCu) who posted:

The first amendment gives you the right to stand in line and ask a question, but not to interrupt!!

Yes, or No: Do you agree with KeithCu's statement?

I mean, don't you find that ridiculous looking at it now? Who are you to demand that I state whether or not I agree with a statement I never made and, further, repeatedly said was completely irrelevant to my point?

The only thing you said that made sense was when you acknowledged that, of all I had posted, I had not posted whatever was said by "the originator of the argument."

Okay.

The "originator of the argument"? Don't you know that threads are called threads because, as people add their VARIOUS points of views, all kinds of different ideas get woven together?

Frankly, your post, demanding that I declare whether I agreed with a stranger's post, struck me as wacko. Nevertheless, I went ahead and answered you on the basis that I thought you might at least be sincere, if off track.

I referred you back to my original statement, 389, which I did not elaborate on because I am the one who didn't want to keep "focusing on" the "interruption" point. I made a different point and if people wanted to talk about that, fine.

But I thought, and obviously still do think, that it was really crazy and rude for you and nicmarlo to keep picking a fight with me over something someone else said and which I repeatedly said had nothing to do with my point.

But that wasn't good enough for you! YOU, certainly not me, had to keep that fight going!

You came right back, 485, and demanded a better answer. Really, I have to laugh. You have no idea how foolish that post was, though I know you probably didn't intend it to be.

You see, very few questions in the law are "yes" or "no," and that is even more true for questions pertaining to the operation of the First Amendment. Thousands and thousands of cases have been decided that establish all kinds of nuances in this area of the law.

But there you were stamping your foot for a "yes" or "no" answer. How ignorant!

Plus, re-read the rest of your post. You went on to give me, a lawyer admitted to the United States Supreme Court for almost 30 years, a lesson on how the First Amendment works and then, most amazingly, you wrote two very large paragraphs detailing why you were "very, very offended" at whatever it is that other poster whoever he was had said.

Hello! I had nothing to do with what he said and I certainly never "focused" on his remark as you now claim I have.

I did react to nicmarlo's repeated statements that his view that the protests were allowed was the end of the matter, because I disagree that that's all we should ask. We agree the protests were allowed. Duh. What I was positing was a discussion, for those who cared to join it and only those who cared to join it, on the manner and method of protesting in effective ways.

Nevertheless, I patiently answered you, 494, even though I never made the initial remark and it was never relevant to my point.

YOU, who, apparently because you were so "very, very offended" by whatshisname's remark, came back again to me, 497, and "focused" on the "interruption" point. I mean, that's just crazy!

YOU argued factual matters that were irrelevant to a question about what, in general, the law says.

Sigh. This is why I try to avoid legal discussions in these type of settings.

Finally, after much badgering by nicmarlo as well as you, I addressed the "interruption" remark, 498, and explained, again, how it had nothing to do with my further point. (Which, by the way, you actually got in your previous post when you disagreed with me on the effectiveness of the protest. That's what we're here for is discussion. And that's why it seems nutty when a people keep posting to me about something I never said and they refuse to engage what my actual point.)

So I again responded to you, 502, in a further effort to resolve the issue you were "focused" on.

You again came back, 504, claiming that I, not you, was the one "focused" on the "interrupt" concept! Wow!

You then spent several large paragraphs telling me what whatzhisface said, why it was in your view wrong, why it offended you so much, and so on. Of course, I would be concerned also if I thought someone was actually saying people didn't have a right to protest. I didn't think he said that; you did. But I wasn't focused on what he said; I was focused on nicmarlo continually arguing since the protesters had a right to protest, the rest of us can't discuss the protest.

What does what whatzhisface said have to do with what *I* said and the points *I* made?

Which were:

1. The issue is not simply whether speech is allowed.

2. It's good to also consider whether the MANNER and METHOD of speech is effective under all the circumstances.

Pretty simple.

Unfortunately, this whole thing came about because nicmarlo (and somehow you jumped on the bandwagon) refused to recognize that, golly, sometimes people post points that go in different directions but are still very much on topic. 514 .

If you or he did not want to discuss my point, that's fine. But to claim I had some responsiblity for whatever whatzhisname said and for you, not me, to continually "focus" on what whatzhisname said in your posts to ME is pure wackiness.