On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:35:12 GMT, "Hank Oredson"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 02:09:41 GMT, "Hank Oredson"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
If you'd commit battery on someone for exercising their
freedom of speech, you apparently learned nothing from your
scrupulously honest relative. I'm sure he'd be ashamed to have such a
brigand in the family.


I see that you are an uneducated dolt

Far from uneducated.

who cannot tell the
difference between "freedom" and "license". I suggest you
investigate that difference. When you report your results to us,
don't forget to mention Tom Paine and also Sra. Montisorri.

Thanks for the subltle references; However my legal position
remains correct.

Your position was a legal one?
You are a lawyer?

I don't have to be a lawyer to understand (or state) that
battery in defense of a third party's honor in retaliation for
first-amendment-protected speech is illegal. It makes you a felon.


Also please stay off the air until you have learned the difference.

At your behest??? And who made you the arbiter of who is
allowed to speak? The guy who puts people in the hospital for
impugning the family honor? Nice try.

I have the same "right" to speak my mind as you do.

Clearly you must be a lawyer, or at least pretend to be, otherwise
you would not have put that "allowed" in there. I didn't say anything
about what you are "allowed" to do or not.

Clearly you're attempting to put words in my mouth.
Meaningless ones at that.

When you fix that education problem,
add a course in reading comprehension.

Focus on "freedom" vs. "license" and "demand" vs. "request".

Focus on anything you like -- I don't need either your
permission to speak or your childish attempt at directing my
education. All you are accomplishing is reinforcing the impression
that you find a felony to be acceptable behavior when faced with a
perceived slight.