At 03:56 21/02/2006, you wrote:
Is it just me or does everyone get two copies of Rishab's mail?
it is just you! well, actually, one of my mail readers adds silk to the cc
line as well as the to line when i group reply by mistake.
-rishab
At 03:56 21/02/2006, you wrote:
Is it just me or
At 06:44 20/02/2006, Biju Chacko wrote:
Yeah, it's ruled by bleeding heart liberals -- what's all this rot
about freedom of speech, anyway? We need regime-change over there.
Let's call Dubya.
in the past 3 years denmark has shifted radically to the right, with
extremist xenophobic parties
Is it just me or does everyone get two copies of Rishab's mail?
Bharath
At 08:29 PM 2/20/2006, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
At 06:44 20/02/2006, Biju Chacko wrote:
Yeah, it's ruled by bleeding heart liberals -- what's all this rot
about freedom of speech, anyway? We need regime-change over
On Tuesday 21 February 2006 08:26, Bharath Chari wrote:
Is it just me or does everyone get two copies of Rishab's mail?
Bharath
I think he's cc'ing silklist@lists.hserus.net and silklist@lists.hserus.net
for some reason ... possibly his email program's forcing him to do it.
-srs
--
Suresh
On 20/02/06, calvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My basic question comes down to this: the right to free speech has
always been limited by the fact that the speaker would be forced to
take the consequences of his speech. Calling someone a liar may get
you sued for libel, for example. However,
On 2/17/06, Badri Natarajan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu February 9 2006 18:29, Badri Natarajan wrote:
Free speech carries terms and conditions everywhere. There is no such
thing as an absolute right to free speech
Really?
Check this out - an Indian minister is offereing a reward
On Sat February 18 2006 06:44, A. M. Merritt wrote:
Is an election approaching? Is his district heavily Muslim?
You may be right on both counts but still that is no excuse for making a
death threat.
This has all the makings of a big political row - and I suspect (and hope)
that this fellow
My basic question comes down to this: the right to free speech has
always been limited by the fact that the speaker would be forced to
take the consequences of his speech. Calling someone a liar may get
you sued for libel, for example. However, there doesn't seem any
consequence for being
At 11:41 08/02/2006, Badri Natarajan wrote:
Eg: Germany,etc have laws against holocaust denial. In India, the
for me, the cartoon row has mainly highlighted the hypocrisy of european
countries. (the position of the muslim countries, where state-owned media
routinely publish highly offensive
fyi, the cartoons themselves are here [1] and they seem pretty inoffensive
(even if any depiction of mohammed is in itself supposedly offensive, most
of the cartoons just have a guy in a turban with no name, and one refers to
a schoolboy named mohammed). this is not the original posting but a
On Feb 8, 2006, at 2:50 AM, Biju Chacko wrote:
However, there doesn't seem any
consequence for being gratuitously offensive against a religion.
Should there be? Should there be consequences for speaking in a
derogative manner about other forms of mental illness?
jb
On Wed February 8 2006 23:27, Brian McNett wrote:
One has to ask who has the motive and the means to incite the moslem
world to violence?
Typically it is the ulema - the Islamic scholars (Imam/Ayatollah/Mullah) - who
are not clergy or priests as generally believed but political animals who use
South Park consistently gets away with ridiculing religions. The
Mormon episode for instance was blatant deconstruction and debunking
of the religion (and hilarious to boot). But perhaps fundamentalists
don't care about a TV channel that targets stoners. :)
On Feb 8, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Rishab
On 2/8/06, Vipul Ved Prakash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
South Park consistently gets away with ridiculing religions. The
Mormon episode for instance was blatant deconstruction and debunking
of the religion (and hilarious to boot). But perhaps fundamentalists
don't care about a TV channel that
14 matches
Mail list logo
