[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Freedom of speech was never intended to cover speech that someone ELSE is
> paying for. Ronald Reagan once shouted down a heckler by saying "I'm
> paying for this microphone!"
No, no, no. We must remember first off that Reagan never did anything.
He was a mindless body-double for someone real. That comeback was
delivered during the incessant quibbling that goes on when the midgets
are trying to cast long shadows during the primaries. He had it
scripted for him, of course. He was about as extemporaneous as Mt
Rushmore. One of his handlers thought the line might work as a trigger
for the six o'clock news. It took off - even though it was meaningless.
Reagan never paid for anything, and he had no more claim on the
equipment on the set than any other candidate.
Boy, you talk about the Clintons taking goods. The Reagans had a
house bought by their group of wealthy handlers after he left
office. He has been, in fact, handled like a puppet since his
studio days. The notion he should be held up as someone who
has paid for his right to speak is laughable.
I have a real world problem here I'd like some opinions on. This is not
hypothetical, it came down just like this.
We kicked off annual physical conventions a few years back. During the
very first one, the resident rogue went to bed with a willing accomplice
who left behind a hubby and two toddlers. The blowup happened when a
close friend of the errant mother and family back in the midwest began
sending private hate E-mail to the rogue.
He complained to me. On balance, in this case, the abuser was much more
valuable to the list than the abused.
So what do you do? I suspect the advice might be a bit more restrained
in this case because it's actual history and I can tell you what the
consequences were.
Anybody wanta play?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Bowden)
"Readers meeting Writers as the Sea the Very Sky"
Send: subscribe nerdnosh To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
