Re: What part of "no" don't I understand?

John W. Burgeson (73531.1501@compuserve.com)
25 Apr 96 12:33:43 EDT

Chuck, in an evasive outburst, writes: "In all the bandying of words, you
haven't addressed my basic point, which was the ACLU's double standard on the
free speech issue: advocacy of virtually unlimited free speech (hence support
for neo-Nazis, KKK, etc.), unless it's what the ACLU deems to be *religious*
speech. So far as I know, the ACLU has never attempted to suppress *any* type
of speech other than religious speech."

1. This is the evolution reflector; I should be pleased to discuss the ACLU (and
other topics of interest) over on Compuserve. Not here.

2. The discussion here is about how to carry on a rational discourse.

3. On two occasions, you made an assertion about the ACLU that did not square
with my understanding. The second time, mildly interested, I asked you for a
citation. You responded with a quotation from an unnamed journalist in an
unspecified issue on an unknown topic of the LA Times, which, by any rational
person's use of logic, did not justify your assertion. I responded that it did
not; you reply with the above.

4. Chuck, the ACLU is not "on trial" here. Your assertion about the ACLU is on
trial. I feel no particular compunction to defend the ACLU against your "So far
as I know... ."

5. Jim has pointed out how you might get to your assertion. I had avoided
attributing that path to you; I should think that "National Inquirer" thinking
would be an embarassment to anyone here. It is up to you, of course, to correct
him, if you are up to it.

Burgy