aside to Joe:

"Because it's a disagreement with ideas more than a personal attack (although I suppose personal attack is involved), and because nobody complained about it. Yes, I suppose it could be more civil, but I don't think I would call this a blatant personal attack. If Beardedbruce complained about it, I would have deleted it - but he didn't."

I did not complain because I copied it in its entirety to a NEW thread, as I considered it off-thread, but worthy of a reply, and replied to the factual challanges in the new thread. THAT thread was removed, because the title of "Arne's Arguement" was considered too offensive.

To all:

I believe that freedom of speech is best defined by Justice Holmes. I do NOT have a problem with censorship APPLIED EQUALLY to those who cross some defined line- BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT HERE.

Is Martin offensive? Yes.

Is Shambles repetitive and verbose? Yes.

But others here are, as well. Shall we define some number of offences permitted, then remove the offenders? Look around at your friends here and ask who would be left.



"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively
calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree but freedom for the thought that we hate."

--- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

US v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 655 (1928)