Bill Arnold wrote: > Freedom of speech > ----------------- > > > If ProFox can learn similarly, there is hope. No, a thousand times no, not > in the institution of "thought police", but in another institution: the jury > of peers system. > Why make it so complicated? There is a better institution, the lack of institution. You'll sometimes not agree with this imaginary "jury of peers", so I have something that will make you happier. The "jury of one peer", you,. I propose that YOU take responsibility over what you read, and filter yourself the people you don't deem worthy of your attention. It would work like a JoP, you put on your wig, you hammer on your own table asking for silence in your court, and you talk to yourself about the merits of each one of us, then you impart "justice" and filter whomever where found "guilty". How about that? Isn't it easier? And a lot less hassle? And everybody as satisfied as they please? Just one cost, YOU have to take responsibility. Apart from all this, THIS thread is completely OT, so you are in violation of the "rules" of the list. I'm not marking it OT because if you are not subscribed to OT then you won't read it, you do that (mark it OT). But it's ironic that someone protesting against off topic conversation will break this rule in his post (I'm referring to the OP).
_______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
