On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:06:58 +0100, williamwright wrote:

> On 28/10/2021 15:24, Bev wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:46:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we all have to 'take the knee' to you?
>>
>> What are you rambling on about?
>>
>>
> He's got you sussed mate.
>
> Bill

What, as a person who prefers honest people who apologise for a
fabrication?

Maybe your varied careers have led you to be happier with those who
practice deceit than those who accept when they are in the wrong and
simply apologise.

On 28/10/2021 21:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 19:25, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 Oct 2021 at 18:26:14 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Or rather the nonsense of it, as I've already explained in another post.
>>>
>>> Ah, it's Mr Rigid-and-Inflexible mind.
>>
>> Hypocrite.
>>
>>> We're not interested in whether it's 100% mathematically true and accurate in
>>> all circumstances, we're interested in the general sense of it, which is that
>>> free speech in most circumstances should be allowed, supported, not prevented,
>>> not illegal, and not harrassed, in particular by woke arseholes.
>>
>> So, as no-one here disagrees with that, what point was Bill trying to
>> make? See below ...
>>
>>> But perhaps you're one of the new Puritans. Been ducking or burning any
>>> witches lately?
>>
>> No, just reporting an abusive and constantly nym-shifting anti-women
>> anti-gay arsehole troll here both to the police and his posting server.
>
> Ah yes, you're one of these snowflakes we hear so much about.

No, I simply resent my time being wasted by ignorant, not to mention
illegal, bigotry.

>> For the moment at least, he has disappeared, which saves the rest of us
>> a great deal of time.
>>
>> So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is nonsense as
>> it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be respected
>> no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
>> libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
>> dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be.
>
> Try looking past your own arse.

So I can see yours better? No thanks! Too much shit!

>> When you speak or post
>> in a public space, you have to apply some social and legal common sense,
>> but unfortunately there seem always to be some who think it their
>> god-given right to abuse the technology that makes it possible in the
>> name of this hypothetical right of 'free speech', a so-called 'right'
>> that has never and doesn't actually exist.
>
> Yes, we know all this, and agree with it. That's inherent in the expression.

Then what are we arguing about?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/10/2021 21:56, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is nonsense as
>> it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be respected
>> no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
>> libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
>> dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be.
>
> None of these should be interefered with except libel.

Self-contradiction, you've only just posted ...

On 28/10/2021 21:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> When you speak or post
>> in a public space, you have to apply some social and legal common sense,
>> but unfortunately there seem always to be some who think it their
>> god-given right to abuse the technology that makes it possible in the
>> name of this hypothetical right of 'free speech', a so-called 'right'
>> that has never and doesn't actually exist.
>
> Yes, we know all this, and agree with it. That's inherent in the
expression.

> And BTW most of what you say is abusive, hypocritical, downright false, in bad
> taste, corrupt, offensive,
> dangerously misinformative. IMO.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this assertion?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/10/2021 23:10, williamwright wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 20:06, Java Jive wrote:
>> No, just reporting an abusive and constantly nym-shifting anti-women
>> anti-gay arsehole troll here both to the police and his posting server.
>
> Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not for
> others.

I'm not a leftie, I'm centrist. And it's funny how righties consider
they have a right to tell abusive and bigoted lies.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 29/10/2021 09:22, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <iu0890Fi7jhU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>
>> But perhaps you're one of the new Puritans. Been ducking or burning
>> any witches lately?
>
> +1,000,000,000 etc.

Thank you both for proving my point that you have no idea how to conduct
adult rational debate.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/10/2021 23:08, williamwright wrote:
>
> On 28/10/2021 15:27, Bev wrote:
>>
>> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
>> 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.
>
> I explained the true situation, which was clearly too subtle for you to
> grasp.

You didn't. You were dishonest on several counts. Not only did you get
the quote wrong, which might have been just an acceptable slip on its
own had you apologised instead of attempting to bluster about it, but
you cross-posted to uk.d-i-y rather than just post to uk.tech.digital-tv
where your post was most relevant, because you know this line of
argument repeatedly has been lost in the latter, and that there are more
right-wing bigots in uk.d-i-y likely to support this nonsense, and
further you omitted to explain to those in uk.d-i-y the background that
prompted you to make the post in the first place.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 29 Oct 2021 at 13:13:49 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/10/2021 23:08, williamwright wrote:
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 15:27, Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
>>> 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.
>>
>> I explained the true situation, which was clearly too subtle for you to
>> grasp.
>
> You didn't. You were dishonest on several counts. Not only did you get
> the quote wrong, which might have been just an acceptable slip on its
> own had you apologised instead of attempting to bluster about it, but
> you cross-posted to uk.d-i-y rather than just post to uk.tech.digital-tv
> where your post was most relevant, because you know this line of
> argument repeatedly has been lost in the latter, and that there are more
> right-wing bigots in uk.d-i-y likely to support this nonsense, and
> further you omitted to explain to those in uk.d-i-y the background that
> prompted you to make the post in the first place.

You are Violet Elizabeth Bott AICMFP.

--
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know what the evidence shows." -- Richard Dawkins

On 29/10/2021 15:37, Tim Streater wrote:
>
> On 29 Oct 2021 at 13:13:49 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 23:08, williamwright wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/10/2021 15:27, Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
>>>> 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.
>>>
>>> I explained the true situation, which was clearly too subtle for you to
>>> grasp.
>>
>> You didn't. You were dishonest on several counts. Not only did you get
>> the quote wrong, which might have been just an acceptable slip on its
>> own had you apologised instead of attempting to bluster about it, but
>> you cross-posted to uk.d-i-y rather than just post to uk.tech.digital-tv
>> where your post was most relevant, because you know this line of
>> argument repeatedly has been lost in the latter, and that there are more
>> right-wing bigots in uk.d-i-y likely to support this nonsense, and
>> further you omitted to explain to those in uk.d-i-y the background that
>> prompted you to make the post in the first place.
>
> You are Violet Elizabeth Bott AICMFP.

You are the child here.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 29/10/2021 09:37, charles wrote:
> i should have typed "cheque"

I just thought you'd turned into an American.

Bill

On 29/10/2021 12:57 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 21:56, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is nonsense as
>>> it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be respected
>>> no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
>>> libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
>>> dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be.
>>
>> None of these should be interefered with except libel.
>
> Self-contradiction, you've only just posted ...
>
> On 28/10/2021 21:23, Tim Streater wrote:
> >> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> When you speak or post
> >> in a public space, you have to apply some social and legal common
> sense,
> >> but unfortunately there seem always to be some who think it their
> >> god-given right to abuse the technology that makes it possible in the
> >> name of this hypothetical right of 'free speech', a so-called 'right'
> >> that has never and doesn't actually exist.
> >
> > Yes, we know all this, and agree with it. That's inherent in the
> expression.
>
>> And BTW most of what you say is abusive, hypocritical, downright
>> false, in bad
>> taste, corrupt, offensive,
>> dangerously misinformative. IMO.
>
> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this assertion?

What *EVIDENCE* does anyone *NEED* in order to express their *OPINION*?

On 31/10/2021 13:46, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/10/2021 12:57 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 28/10/2021 21:56, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is nonsense as
>>>> it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be respected
>>>> no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
>>>> libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
>>>> dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be.
>>>
>>> None of these should be interefered with except libel.
>>
>> Self-contradiction, you've only just posted ...
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 21:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>  >> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> When you speak or post
>>  >> in a public space, you have to apply some social and legal common
>> sense,
>>  >> but unfortunately there seem always to be some who think it their
>>  >> god-given right to abuse the technology that makes it possible in the
>>  >> name of this hypothetical right of 'free speech', a so-called 'right'
>>  >> that has never and doesn't actually exist.
>>  >
>>  > Yes, we know all this, and agree with it. That's inherent in the
>> expression.
>>
>>> And BTW most of what you say is abusive, hypocritical, downright
>>> false, in bad
>>> taste, corrupt, offensive,
>>> dangerously misinformative. IMO.
>>
>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this assertion?
>
> What *EVIDENCE* does anyone *NEED* in order to express their *OPINION*?

Because in its absence their opinion just remains a worthless piece of
irrational and ineffective bolshing.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 02:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/10/2021 13:46, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/10/2021 12:57 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 28/10/2021 21:56, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is
>>>>> nonsense as
>>>>> it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be
>>>>> respected
>>>>> no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
>>>>> libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
>>>>> dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be.
>>>>
>>>> None of these should be interefered with except libel.
>>>
>>> Self-contradiction, you've only just posted ...
>>>
>>> On 28/10/2021 21:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>  >> On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>  >>
>>>  >> When you speak or post
>>>  >> in a public space, you have to apply some social and legal common
>>> sense,
>>>  >> but unfortunately there seem always to be some who think it their
>>>  >> god-given right to abuse the technology that makes it possible in
>>> the
>>>  >> name of this hypothetical right of 'free speech', a so-called
>>> 'right'
>>>  >> that has never and doesn't actually exist.
>>>  >
>>>  > Yes, we know all this, and agree with it. That's inherent in the
>>> expression.
>>>
>>>> And BTW most of what you say is abusive, hypocritical, downright
>>>> false, in bad
>>>> taste, corrupt, offensive,
>>>> dangerously misinformative. IMO.
>>>
>>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this assertion?
>>
>> What *EVIDENCE* does anyone *NEED* in order to express their *OPINION*?
>
> Because in its absence their opinion just remains a worthless piece of
> irrational and ineffective bolshing.

That's your *OPINION*, is it?

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that assertion?

On 31/10/2021 15:13, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/10/2021 02:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 13:46, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 29/10/2021 12:57 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 28/10/2021 21:56, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> And BTW most of what you say is abusive, hypocritical, downright
>>>>> false, in bad
>>>>> taste, corrupt, offensive,
>>>>> dangerously misinformative. IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this assertion?
>>>
>>> What *EVIDENCE* does anyone *NEED* in order to express their *OPINION*?
>>
>> Because in its absence their opinion just remains a worthless piece of
>> irrational and ineffective bolshing.
>
> That's your *OPINION*, is it?
>
> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that assertion?

See the posts of the person originally reported to the police, and the
self-contradictions that I've pointed out in Tim Streater's.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 03:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/10/2021 15:13, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 02:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 31/10/2021 13:46, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 29/10/2021 12:57 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 28/10/2021 21:56, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> And BTW most of what you say is abusive, hypocritical, downright
>>>>>> false, in bad
>>>>>> taste, corrupt, offensive,
>>>>>> dangerously misinformative. IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this assertion?
>>>>
>>>> What *EVIDENCE* does anyone *NEED* in order to express their *OPINION*?
>>>
>>> Because in its absence their opinion just remains a worthless piece
>>> of irrational and ineffective bolshing.
>>
>> That's your *OPINION*, is it?
>>
>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that assertion?
>
> See the posts of the person originally reported to the police, and the
> self-contradictions that I've pointed out in Tim Streater's.

So no *EVIDENCE* at all.

On 31/10/2021 15:55, JNugent wrote:
> On 31/10/2021 03:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 15:13, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 31/10/2021 02:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 31/10/2021 13:46, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What *EVIDENCE* does anyone *NEED* in order to express their
>>>>> *OPINION*?
>>>>
>>>> Because in its absence their opinion just remains a worthless piece
>>>> of irrational and ineffective bolshing.
>>>
>>> That's your *OPINION*, is it?
>>>
>>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that assertion?
>>
>> See the posts of the person originally reported to the police, and the
>> self-contradictions that I've pointed out in Tim Streater's.
>
> So no *EVIDENCE* at all.

If you can't accept that contradicting one's self is a failure of
logical argument, then really there's not much point in arguing with
you, as indeed there usually isn't, because logical argument is not one
of your noted abilities.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 04:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 31/10/2021 15:55, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 03:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 31/10/2021 15:13, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 31/10/2021 02:56 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 31/10/2021 13:46, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> What *EVIDENCE* does anyone *NEED* in order to express their
>>>>>> *OPINION*?
>
>>>>> Because in its absence their opinion just remains a worthless piece
>>>>> of irrational and ineffective bolshing.
>
>>>> That's your *OPINION*, is it?
>>>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that assertion?
>
>>> See the posts of the person originally reported to the police, and
>>> the self-contradictions that I've pointed out in Tim Streater's.
>
>> So no *EVIDENCE* at all.
>
> If you can't accept that contradicting one's self is a failure of
> logical argument, then really there's not much point in arguing with
> you, as indeed there usually isn't, because logical argument is not one
> of your noted abilities.

That's your *OPINION*, for which you provide no *EVIDENCE* at all.

As *USUAL*.

For you, your mere unsupported *ASSERTION* is all the evidence which you
say could *POSSIBLY* be *NEEDED*.

On 29/10/2021 13:00, Java Jive wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 23:10, williamwright wrote:
>> On 28/10/2021 20:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>> No, just reporting an abusive and constantly nym-shifting anti-women
>>> anti-gay arsehole troll here both to the police and his posting server.
>>
>> Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not for
>> others.
>
> I'm not a leftie, I'm centrist. And it's funny how righties consider
> they have a right to tell abusive and bigoted lies.

Centrists believe only they can tell bigoted lies, and Righties
shouldn't be allowed an opinion?

On 31/10/2021 20:02, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2021 04:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2021 15:55, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31/10/2021 03:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> See the posts of the person originally reported to the police, and
>>>> the self-contradictions that I've pointed out in Tim Streater's.
>>>
>>> So no *EVIDENCE* at all.
>>
>> If you can't accept that contradicting one's self is a failure of
>> logical argument, then really there's not much point in arguing with
>> you, as indeed there usually isn't, because logical argument is not
>> one of your noted abilities.
>
> That's your *OPINION*, for which you provide no *EVIDENCE* at all.

FFS, didn't you learn *ANYTHING* at school? It's one of the founding
precepts of logical reasoning that any pair of contradicting statements
cannot both be true at the same time.

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/handouts/phl4contradiction.htm

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 20:22, Fredxx wrote:
>
> On 29/10/2021 13:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 28/10/2021 23:10, williamwright wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not for
>>> others.
>>
>> I'm not a leftie, I'm centrist. And it's funny how righties consider
>> they have a right to tell abusive and bigoted lies.
>
> Centrists believe only they can tell bigoted lies, and Righties
> shouldn't be allowed an opinion?

Your question doesn't seem to follow logically from what I said above, I
suggest you reread it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 20:37, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/10/2021 20:22, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>> On 29/10/2021 13:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/10/2021 23:10, williamwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not for
>>>> others.
>>>
>>> I'm not a leftie, I'm centrist. And it's funny how righties consider
>>> they have a right to tell abusive and bigoted lies.
>>
>> Centrists believe only they can tell bigoted lies, and Righties
>> shouldn't be allowed an opinion?
>
> Your question doesn't seem to follow logically from what I said above, I
> suggest you reread it.

I have, I take it you disapprove "righties consider they have a right"
to give their opinion.

And since you tell bigoted lies, my post is quite logical.

On 31/10/2021 08:31 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 31/10/2021 20:02, JNugent wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 04:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 31/10/2021 15:55, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 31/10/2021 03:38 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>>> See the posts of the person originally reported to the police, and
>>>>> the self-contradictions that I've pointed out in Tim Streater's.
>
>>>> So no *EVIDENCE* at all.
>
>>> If you can't accept that contradicting one's self is a failure of
>>> logical argument, then really there's not much point in arguing with
>>> you, as indeed there usually isn't, because logical argument is not
>>> one of your noted abilities.
>
>> That's your *OPINION*, for which you provide no *EVIDENCE* at all.
>
> FFS, didn't you learn *ANYTHING* at school?  It's one of the founding
> precepts of logical reasoning that any pair of contradicting statements
> cannot both be true at the same time.

That's *EXACTLY* why I *NEVER* give any *CREDENCE* to *YOUR* statements.

On 31/10/2021 21:07, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2021 08:31 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 31/10/2021 20:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31/10/2021 04:11 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you can't accept that contradicting one's self is a failure of
>>>> logical argument, then really there's not much point in arguing with
>>>> you, as indeed there usually isn't, because logical argument is not
>>>> one of your noted abilities.
>>>>
>>> That's your *OPINION*, for which you provide no *EVIDENCE* at all.
>>
>> FFS, didn't you learn *ANYTHING* at school?  It's one of the founding
>> precepts of logical reasoning that any pair of contradicting
>> statements cannot both be true at the same time.
>
> That's *EXACTLY* why I *NEVER* give any *CREDENCE* to *YOUR* statements.

Except that I haven't contradicted myself in this thread, and rarely do
so in others, so your reasons for not giving me credence must lie elsewhere.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 20:47, Fredxx wrote:
> On 31/10/2021 20:37, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 20:22, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>> On 29/10/2021 13:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 28/10/2021 23:10, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not
>>>>> for others.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a leftie, I'm centrist. And it's funny how righties consider
>>>> they have a right to tell abusive and bigoted lies.
>>>
>>> Centrists believe only they can tell bigoted lies, and Righties
>>> shouldn't be allowed an opinion?
>>
>> Your question doesn't seem to follow logically from what I said above,
>> I suggest you reread it.
>
> I have, I take it you disapprove "righties consider they have a right"
> to give their opinion.

On the contrary, we *all* have a right to give our opinions, so long as
they are true, legal, fair, etc, as stated before. The problem seems to
be that some right-wing people particularly, others do do it as well but
most often it's right-wingers, seem to regard the oft-touted 'freedom of
speech' so-called-right as a carte-blanche to say whatever they like
about anybody or anything without regard to its truth, legality,
fairness, etc.

> And since you tell bigoted lies, my post is quite logical.

Give an example of my telling a bigoted lie.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 31/10/2021 21:47, Java Jive wrote:
> On 31/10/2021 20:47, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 20:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 31/10/2021 20:22, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29/10/2021 13:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/10/2021 23:10, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not
>>>>>> for others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a leftie, I'm centrist. And it's funny how righties
>>>>> consider they have a right to tell abusive and bigoted lies.
>>>>
>>>> Centrists believe only they can tell bigoted lies, and Righties
>>>> shouldn't be allowed an opinion?
>>>
>>> Your question doesn't seem to follow logically from what I said
>>> above, I suggest you reread it.
>>
>> I have, I take it you disapprove "righties consider they have a right"
>> to give their opinion.
>
> On the contrary, we *all* have a right to give our opinions, so long as
> they are true, legal, fair, etc, as stated before.  The problem seems to
> be that some right-wing people particularly, others do do it as well but
> most often it's right-wingers, seem to regard the oft-touted 'freedom of
> speech' so-called-right as a carte-blanche to say whatever they like
> about anybody or anything without regard to its truth, legality,
> fairness, etc.
>
>> And since you tell bigoted lies, my post is quite logical.
>
> Give an example of my telling a bigoted lie.

This one for a start, " it's funny how righties consider they have a
right to tell abusive and bigoted lies".

They simply give opinions, unless it's something a 'centrist' wouldn't
like to hear.

On 31 Oct 2021 at 21:47:41 GMT, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 31/10/2021 20:47, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 31/10/2021 20:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 31/10/2021 20:22, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29/10/2021 13:00, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/10/2021 23:10, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not
>>>>>> for others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a leftie, I'm centrist. And it's funny how righties consider
>>>>> they have a right to tell abusive and bigoted lies.
>>>>
>>>> Centrists believe only they can tell bigoted lies, and Righties
>>>> shouldn't be allowed an opinion?
>>>
>>> Your question doesn't seem to follow logically from what I said above,
>>> I suggest you reread it.
>>
>> I have, I take it you disapprove "righties consider they have a right"
>> to give their opinion.
>
> On the contrary, we *all* have a right to give our opinions, so long as
> they are true, legal, fair, etc,

And you are the one to decide, of course.

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689