|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: HELL: The Official SoF Phelps-watch Thread
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Oh lord. It was just a matter of time before something like this happened and everyone concerned is just lucky it was nothing worse than pepper spray. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I understand First Amendment rights. They need to be protected, no doubt. That being said, something is wrong when a group gets to spread their hate filled message in a way that hurts the families of daughters and sons who have died for their country like that, and the group does NOT get a notably negative reaction.
Pepper spray in front of witnesses is just a bad idea. Co-ordinated lawsuits for intentional infliction of emotional distress that drives them into bankruptcy, is a good idea.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
Not even Phelphs derserved to be pepper sprayed . But he does seem to ask for the abuse doesn't he ?
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
If you stand up in the United States of America and say something, it's your First Amendment right to say it.
But I also have the right to stand up and call you a jackass and tell you to sit your fool self down.
In doing so, I am in no way infringing your First Amendment rights, I am just exercising my own.
[ 31. August 2010, 21:11: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
But you can't attack me or pepper spray me.
Having said that, I do tend to think, like Tortuf seemed to intimate, that common civility should be legally allowed. As has been done (and debated) with respect to the anti-abortion demonstrations.
You are allowed to say your piece, but you are also expected to maintain a respectful distance so as not to create a public situation which interferes with the person who is trying to go about his or her legal business.
I do hope the Supreme Court will tell the Phelps that they need to keep their First Amendment rights at a respectful distance.
Sadly, the stupid Citizens United decision doesn't give me much hope.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Not even Phelphs derserved to be pepper sprayed . But he does seem to ask for the abuse doesn't he ?
Deserve? That asshole and his whole family of assholes deserve quite a lot of bad things.
Put yourselves in the position of a grieving parent, burying the child they love. Fred et al. show up to tell you God killed your child because of homosexuality. In a fair world a group of very large men with baseball bats would be able to come after them to teach them a lesson in civility.
We do not live in a fair world. We live in a world where wingnuts like that do the things they do. We keep chaos from seeping into our world because we (most of us, anyway) agree to follow a common set of rules that are enforced by our society. Sometimes those rules keep us from giving into urges that seem justified at the time, but which could easily be the leading edge of chaos.
It is when the so called leaders of our societies give into primal urges of hatred that we all suffer a loss of our humanity. This is why the opposition to the Mosques in New York and Murfreesboro is so sad.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
I wouldn't consider Fred Phelps and company as leaders of anything . They are vile disgusting people . However that does not m,ean that we have to act the same way. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
I wouldn't consider Fred Phelps and company as leaders of anything . They are vile disgusting people . However that does not mean that we have to act the same way.
Amen.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Guess who's going to take over the burning of the Koran?
And they've already done it once.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Turning WBC press releases into poetry.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Oh, that's brilliant, Spiffy! Thank you!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
I just heard on the radio that the family of Tyler Clementi has not announced plans for his funeral. I immediately thought of old Phred -- let's pray that Phred and his family do not show up and harrass this grieving family. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
(The students who filmed and posted the video of Tyler deserve their own Hell thread.)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Tyler and Clementi family.
I hope the filmers get the book thrown at them.
Has anyone ever tried distracting or gently waylaying the Freds on their way to an event? (Within legal bounds.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
There have been several suicides recently of young gay and lesbian youth, one as young as 13, who were bullied relentlessly to the point they killed themselves. Kids have a habit of bullying, but the fervor with which they go after their gay classmates is an indication of the hatred all face every day. I pray Phred doesn't find out about any of the funerals.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There have been several suicides recently of young gay and lesbian youth, one as young as 13, who were bullied relentlessly to the point they killed themselves. Kids have a habit of bullying, but the fervor with which they go after their gay classmates is an indication of the hatred all face every day. I pray Phred doesn't find out about any of the funerals.
Absolutely. My concern is that this case is getting so much publicity, and Phred does love high profile funerals.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Absolutely. My concern is that this case is getting so much publicity, and Phred does love high profile funerals.
A very spot on concern. If Phred can't get to the most high profile case, he may target one of the others and make it high profile. The fact there have been so many lately means there are too many like Phred out there, only they teach it to their children out of public sight.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Fred can only make a low-profile funeral into a high-profile funeral through the aiding and abetting of the f***ing media. If they would just ignore that scum, he'd dry up and wither away. He feeds on attention as a tick feeds on blood.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
They were here yesterday at a soldier's funeral, carrying signs that said "God Hate Soldiers."
(No!! God. Does. Not.)
Anyway, our state has a law that protesters have to stand 200 feet away at funerals (law was brought about by these folks), and the Patriot Guard was on hand to rev their motors so the chants couldn't be heard.
Don't forget the Phelps a Thon web site for contributions toward all the things the Westoboro folks are protesting.
sabine
[ 03. October 2010, 13:34: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
I se they will be before the US Supreme Court today pleading freedom of speech. Since what they utter i
I see that they are before the US Supreme Court pleading 1st amendment rights for their speech. Only in the US could this happen
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
This page is a link to the several briefs filed in the case. You have to scroll down.
I will be reading the Phelps brief and may come back with some choice lines.
Here is the link to the Phelps brief for the masochists among you.
Let me start out with a fascinating revelation. Quoting from their Questions Presented section: quote:
Whether Petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress must fail because
WBC’s loose, figurative, hyperbolic speech, which no reasonable reader could interpret as stating actual facts, is public-issue speech (and because Petitioner is not a private figure).
Apparently, they don't want us to believe the shit they say.
Hmmmm.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
The content, form and context show WBC’s
speech is public and thus protected. For an additional reason WBC’s words are protected, which is because of the type of words. They are hyperbolic, figurative, loose, hysterical opinion. By their content, form and context, no reasonable reader could conclude they contain provable facts, but rather are clearly opinion, spoken about facts available equally to everyone.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Tortuf,
Many thanks for the link. But it does appear that the statement you copy is picked up directly from the Applicant's Brief.It is not the statement of the Respondents.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
These are the questions presented by Snyder: quote:
I. Whether the First Amendment Permits Mr.
Snyder, a Private Figure Plaintiff Who Had No
Connection to the “Issues” Cited by the Phelpses,
To Seek Judicial Recourse for the Harm Intentionally
Inflicted upon Him by the Phelpses’ Tortious
Conduct?
II. Whether Mr. Snyder Should Not Be Required to
Prove That the Phelpses’ Speech Could “Reasonably
Be Interpreted as Stating Actual Facts” in Order to
Recover for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress?
III. Whether Mr. Snyder, as a Member of a Captive
Audience Mourning the Loss of His Son at a Funeral,
Is Entitled to a Remedy for the Phelpses’ Intentional
Invasion of His Privacy?
IV. Whether Mr. Snyder’s First Amendment Rights to
Free Exercise of Religion and Peaceable Assembly
Should Outweigh the Phelpses’ First Amendment
Right to Target Hateful Speech at Him During His
Son’s Funeral?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
These are the questions presented by Phelps: quote:
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether Petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress must fail because it is
based on speech by Westboro Baptist Church that
was on public issues, and was not false statements
of fact (and because Petitioner is not a
private figure).
2. Whether Petitioner’s claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress must fail because
WBC’s loose, figurative, hyperbolic speech, which
no reasonable reader could interpret as stating
actual facts, is public-issue speech (and because
Petitioner is not a private figure).
3. Whether Petitioner’s invasion of privacy claim
must fail because he was not a member of a
captive audience, and even if he was, Westboro
Baptist Church’s speech occurred well outside
any zone of privacy the Court might ever recognize
in a public funeral.
4. Whether Petitioner’s invasion of privacy claim
must fail because Westboro Baptist Church did
not interfere with or disrupt the public funeral of
his son, so it is not necessary to weigh Westboro
Baptist Church’s right to engage in religious
speech on public right-of-ways against any privacy
right the Court might find in a public
funeral.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
You will note that my first quote came from the Phelps brief.
In fact, I did not attempt to read Mr. Snyder's brief until Gee D's comment. It would therefore be hard to have pulled a quote from his brief by mistake.
[ 07. October 2010, 00:30: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Tortuf , What I meant is that the statement in the Phelps brief has been copied from the Snyder brief - see at page 17, paragraph 23, which contains portions of the Court of Appeal reasons, where that Court uses the precise words in the Phelps brief.
There had been some publicity here about various incidents involving the Phelpses; the summary of evidence shows them as irrational hatemongers, intent upon the infliction of distress. It's not surprising that the jury found as it did.
[ 07. October 2010, 01:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
No. It is not. They are a hateful group of (expletive deleted) nasty people hiding under the cloak of the Constitution.
Heaven help me, I wish they didn't have a point.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ther is an enormous difference between freedom of speech as a right on the one hand, and intentional infliction of nervous shock on the other. While there is, in NSW, no bill of rights, I'm reasonably sure that any similar prohibition here would be read as still allowing a claim for damages, either for defamation or for intentional or negligent infliction of nervous shock. The courts would probably also uphold any criminal law where a consequence of the exercise of the right would be to incite violence.
Obviously, there is a wealth of US jurisprudence on the extent of the protection of the Bill of Rights amendments. As a complete outsider, I would read the effect of the First Amendment as a prohibition on legislation restricting freedom of speech. It does not appear that Mr Sndyer relied upon any legislation, but upon a common law, non-statutory, cause of action; I find it hard to see how the Constitutional protection has been infringed.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
The Constitution addresses action by the government. If I court says "you owe Mr. Snyder X amount of dollars because you intentionally inflicted emotional harm" it is an act of a governmental entity.
The Constitution is not limited to legislation.
How that line can be drawn is an interesting question. Personally, I think they have gone over the line and then some. That could be in part because I think they are raving lunatics who are intent upon personally harming people in order to further their insane vision of G*d.
On the other hand, if they can be restrained, how might that argument be used by the nutters opposing the mosque here in Murfreesboro to help stop the construction of a mosque? Clearly, the proposed mosque is hurting several peoples' finer sensibilities. (OK, it is really pissing off the antediluvian redneck paranoid set.) Shouldn't that be enough to stop the mosque?
You see, I fear the camel's nose under the tent flap.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
You see, I fear the camel's nose under the tent flap.
Which is why the First Amendment is such an amazing thing.
And the Founding Fathers put it first, which also says a lot. As much as we sometimes like to think they were all mature and sober men back then, I sincerely doubt the people involved saw it that way. But they managed to pull up their Big Girl Panties and admit that one man's idiot is another man's wise man, so if any of the other things they argued about and wrote were to work, everyone needed to be free to say his (and later, her) piece in public.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks Tortuf for your comments about the breadth of the First Amendment; that's somthing that as an outsider I had not picked up.
Is a possible answer that which applies here in defamation cases - there is freedom of speech (subject to the incitement to violence to which I referred) but if the exercise of that right causes damage to a person, then you must pay that damage?
As to your comments about a mosque. The location shows a real lack of sensibility on the part of the proponents of the building, but it's not likely to incite violence. It should be allowed. That said, I'm not at all sure how construction of a building is exercise of the right to freedom of speech.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is a possible answer that which applies here in defamation cases - there is freedom of speech (subject to the incitement to violence to which I referred) but if the exercise of that right causes damage to a person, then you must pay that damage?
As to your comments about a mosque. The location shows a real lack of sensibility on the part of the proponents of the building, but it's not likely to incite violence. It should be allowed. That said, I'm not at all sure how construction of a building is exercise of the right to freedom of speech.
I'm not Tortuf, but I hope you don't mind my inserting my understanding. Defamation wouldn't apply here as the protesters weren't saying the marine whose funeral was being held was gay and thus responsible for the supposed judgment of God on the nation or that he was in any way responsible for the deaths of other military. Rather, the supposed defamation was against our government and the nation as a whole, which is allowed under Free Speech.
As to the NY Mosque, the 1st Amendment also prohibits the government from restricting freedom of religion, including building of a Mosque, simply because it offends the sensibilities of some. There has been no civil code or legal violation that would prohibit the building of the Mosque and they've met all but financial requirements thus far.
I think the more pertinent issue in this case is how far private establishments be it churches or cemeteries can go in limiting areas of protest. Thus far, most rulings on anything of this nature (abortion protests come to mind) have basically been that once on public property (sidewalk, street, etc) there is the right of peaceful protest.
ETA: Protesters cannot, however, block the entrance to said private business or entity.
[ 07. October 2010, 09:13: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Niteowl, can I suggest that you read the series of posts. I am well aware that the cause of action here is intentional infliction of nervous shock, not defamation. I was using defamation as an analogy to try to tease out an answer to some of the serious questions Tortuf raised. Similar commetns about the proposed mosque.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Well, I only play Tortuf on TV, but Niteowl2 is essentially correct.
The Phelps pestilence is depending on several parts of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.
I do not know where the line should be drawn here. Wherever it is, I think they have crossed it. Perhaps it can be placed in the context of the target of the protest. If the protest can reasonably be seen as a protest against government, ideas, political figures, and the like, it is protected. If the action is directed at one person, with the knowledge that a reasonable person would find that it was bound to create emotional distress, it is not protected.
This is actually kind of close to the Phelps' argument. Except they say that Snyder became a public figure because of talking to the press.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I am not a lawyer, and my heart bleeds for Mr Snyder and anyone else subjected to the assholes at WBC, but...
if the Supreme Court of the USA decides against that WBC's First Amendment rights (especially after that idiotic "corporations are persons" decision) I'm gonna be in a real bad place when it comes to my opinion of my own country.
Dwight Eisenhower was a true prophet, way back in the '50s, perhaps more than he knew. Except that he didn't foresee how the benign '50s Christianity would morph to join the military-industrial complex.
[ 07. October 2010, 10:18: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
My apologies if I answered out of turn and didn't give an answer you were wanting. Didn't mean to usurp Tortuf's place, but thought I could add my own 2 pennies to the conversation before he returned with his own answer. I'll know better next time if you're looking only for a specific person to speak. The law here is pretty much cut and dried as it's been ruled on before with respect to other times and issues. Not too much room to move once you use the parameters you tried to put up. My last statement was my opinion on the true issue before the court - how much latitude does a private place of business have in limiting protesters?
I'll add another opinion, if you don't mind. It's a slippery slope once you have a go at trying to limit free speech due to offensiveness. One never knows where the lines will be re-drawn in the future. Better to have the peaceful counter measures put in place by civilians to block the offending Phelps clan from the view of the mourners than and to find another way to work out the Mosque issue than trying to find a legal means of blocking either. You never know when you'll be on the receiving end of the legal maneuvers next time.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
When Fred Phelps dies, I wonder what will be on the placards at his funeral?
Maybe God will arrange a few of his own at the pearly gates?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
When Fred Phelps dies, I wonder what will be on the placards at his funeral?
Maybe God will arrange a few of his own at the pearly gates?
Should there even be anyone at old Freddie's funeral? The family wouldn't be offended, they'd be overjoyed at any protests. I read today one of his grandkid's making the statement that when their family is gone the U.S. will be too. That kind of arrogance would thrive on the attention. A better response would be for everyone to simply ignore the occasion as he doesn't deserve any attention.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
You are doing fine, Niteowl2. You cannot usurp anyone's place here, as there are no places here. Except for hosts and admins, of course.
In a small effort to attribute some humanity to these - whatever they are - the Phelps brief did have an interesting insight into the origins of their calamitous crusade. Their anti homosexual protests started when they began protesting at a local park that (they claim) was notorious for homosexual liaisons in the bushes.
Whatever the Court says about their rights, they still ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Don't hold your breath for that one.
But...wouldn't it be cool if one of the clan finally "came out" and started an anti-Westboro society? Ah! To dream! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Niteowl, Tortuf and I were not having a private conversation; it was and is open to everyone to comment as they consider proper. All I was suggesting is that you read the relevant posts before bursting into print.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As to your comments about a mosque. The location shows a real lack of sensibility on the part of the proponents of the building, but it's not likely to incite violence.
Tortuf didn't refer to the non-ground-zero non-mosque in New York City. He referred to the mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Whose location is not an insensitive decision, unless you think building a mosque anywhere in an American city is insensitive. The anti-mosque forces have so completely and successfully sold the "sensitivity" issue that it has started to rub off on every proposed mosque construction project in the USA. We are all losers if we buy into that rhetoric.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Mousethief , as you say,we are certainly all losers if we adopt thatline.
Tortuf's post referred to the NY mosque. I did not realise that to be really a reference to one in Tennessee.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
On the other hand, if they can be restrained, how might that argument be used by the nutters opposing the mosque here in Murfreesboro to help stop the construction of a mosque? Clearly, the proposed mosque is hurting several peoples' finer sensibilities. (OK, it is really pissing off the antediluvian redneck paranoid set.) Shouldn't that be enough to stop the mosque?
Unless they've moved Murfreesboro....
[ 09. October 2010, 01:59: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Don't hold your breath for that one.
But...wouldn't it be cool if one of the clan finally "came out" and started an anti-Westboro society? Ah! To dream!
Well, his son Nate is not 'out' as gay, but he does do his best to talk about the family's sickness
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What are Big Girl Panties? And, where can I get a pair?
What they are
Where to purchase
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Are the Big Girl Panties of the same material as the Supreme Bourt briefs?
My apologies Mousthief; I read Niteowl's rerefence to the NY mosque and Tortuf's reply, then conflated them. Back to work now.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No harm.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
