Damn them all to HELLL!!!!!! (Pentax)

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:23:30 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:27:47 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:21:27 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:47:09 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

There's no libel. I know about the convictions, the assault charges,
the mental illness, the two restraining orders.

You are making false and derogatory statements and accusations. That IS libel, peterson.

Georgia places very little value on privacy. All of this information
is part of the public record, and easily accessible.

None of your accusations are true about me, so what you wrote is libelous.

You have no defense, peterson.

Prove it.

You do not have the truth on your side, peterson. Would you be going to court with some other defense?

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:23:11 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:30:48 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:20:38 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The fairness doctrine attempts to ensure that all political viewpoints
have reasonable access to a limited public resource.

What are the opposing "political viewpoints" to the idea that, for example, there should be affirmation action and quotas for short people?

Whatever the regulatory agency decides. That's the function of a
regulatory agency.

You are evading the question, peterson.


IOW, once society comes to accept that it is a form of child abuse,
laws will follow. 50 years ago you could spank your children. Today,
you mostly cannot. Law follows culture.

Incorrect. Corporal punishment of brats is still perfectly legal, so long as physical injury does not occur. If the brats are -upset- about getting spanked when they misbehave, well, that's the idea.

Depends on where you are. In some jurisdictions, corporal punishment
is illegal. In most, it is regulated. You could most certainly use
corporal punishment in ways 50 years ago that you cannot today. And
because of changing social attitudes, just smacking a kid in public
will identify you to most people as a savage, and may result in calls
to the police and a visit from child protective services.

Actually, if I see a child misbehave and the parents don't deal with the misbehavior, I assume that they are wimps.

I don't propose creating such a law now, because it wouldn't conform
to a societal moral consensus.

If "societal moral consensus" were to be that child labor is OK, then do you want laws to reflect that????

Yes.

So, sweatshops full of kids working full time is OK with you?

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:15:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:23:11 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:30:48 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:20:38 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The fairness doctrine attempts to ensure that all political viewpoints
have reasonable access to a limited public resource.

What are the opposing "political viewpoints" to the idea that, for example, there should be affirmation action and quotas for short people?

Whatever the regulatory agency decides. That's the function of a
regulatory agency.

You are evading the question, peterson.

No, I'm not. It isn't my job to make the determination. That's what
regulatory agencies exist for.

Actually, if I see a child misbehave and the parents don't deal with the misbehavior, I assume that they are wimps.

Well, as a convicted abuser yourself, that hardly surprises me.

I don't propose creating such a law now, because it wouldn't conform
to a societal moral consensus.

If "societal moral consensus" were to be that child labor is OK, then do you want laws to reflect that????

Yes.

So, sweatshops full of kids working full time is OK with you?

No. But I don't require that societal norms be OK with me.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:07:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:23:30 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:27:47 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:21:27 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:47:09 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

There's no libel. I know about the convictions, the assault charges,
the mental illness, the two restraining orders.

You are making false and derogatory statements and accusations. That IS libel, peterson.

Georgia places very little value on privacy. All of this information
is part of the public record, and easily accessible.

None of your accusations are true about me, so what you wrote is libelous.

You have no defense, peterson.

Prove it.

You do not have the truth on your side, peterson. Would you be going to court with some other defense?

It wouldn't be an issue in court, because I haven't lied.

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 12:47:41 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:15:35 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:23:11 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:30:48 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:20:38 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The fairness doctrine attempts to ensure that all political viewpoints
have reasonable access to a limited public resource.

What are the opposing "political viewpoints" to the idea that, for example, there should be affirmation action and quotas for short people?

Whatever the regulatory agency decides. That's the function of a
regulatory agency.

You are evading the question, peterson.

No, I'm not. It isn't my job to make the determination. That's what
regulatory agencies exist for.

If you are favor of the fairness doctrine then you must be prepared to answer any or all questions posed to you about it.




Actually, if I see a child misbehave and the parents don't deal with the misbehavior, I assume that they are wimps.

Well, as a convicted abuser yourself, that hardly surprises me.

I am not a "convicted abuser" or any sort of "abuser." You just committed another libel. Contact your lawyer.

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 12:48:06 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:07:09 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:23:30 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:27:47 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:21:27 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:47:09 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

There's no libel. I know about the convictions, the assault charges,
the mental illness, the two restraining orders.

You are making false and derogatory statements and accusations. That IS libel, peterson.

Georgia places very little value on privacy. All of this information
is part of the public record, and easily accessible.

None of your accusations are true about me, so what you wrote is libelous.

You have no defense, peterson.

Prove it.

You do not have the truth on your side, peterson. Would you be going to court with some other defense?

It wouldn't be an issue in court, because I haven't lied.

You just committed libel once again by stating a falsehood about me. Contact your lawyer so that he can give you advice about what your possible defenses might be.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 04:26:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:

What are the opposing "political viewpoints" to the idea that, for example, there should be affirmation action and quotas for short people?

Whatever the regulatory agency decides. That's the function of a
regulatory agency.

You are evading the question, peterson.

No, I'm not. It isn't my job to make the determination. That's what
regulatory agencies exist for.

If you are favor of the fairness doctrine then you must be prepared to answer any or all questions posed to you about it.

I did answer the question. I am not qualified to decide the details.
That is the purpose of experts, and unlike you, I defer to expert
opinion.




Actually, if I see a child misbehave and the parents don't deal with the misbehavior, I assume that they are wimps.

Well, as a convicted abuser yourself, that hardly surprises me.

I am not a "convicted abuser" or any sort of "abuser." You just committed another libel. Contact your lawyer.

The state of Georgia has a different view on that. There's a charge in
Florida, as well.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 9:46:00 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 04:26:03 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

What are the opposing "political viewpoints" to the idea that, for example, there should be affirmation action and quotas for short people?

Whatever the regulatory agency decides. That's the function of a
regulatory agency.

You are evading the question, peterson.

No, I'm not. It isn't my job to make the determination. That's what
regulatory agencies exist for.

If you are favor of the fairness doctrine then you must be prepared to answer any or all questions posed to you about it.

I did answer the question. I am not qualified to decide the details.
That is the purpose of experts, and unlike you, I defer to expert
opinion.

You completely missed the point, as usual. There are NO experts on such matters. A talk show host might decide that having a short-persons' advocate as a guest is just the ticket for improved ratings. The show might provide some thought-provoking commentary, if nothing else.

However, you would allow a "government expert" the opportunity to effectively shut down such discussion on the radio. Which then leads to another question: "If the government gets to decide such things, then what exactly IS the purpose of even having radio and TV, dissemination of propaganda?"

How will listeners even know not to trust it any more when a small cadre of leftists has such influence on the content?





Actually, if I see a child misbehave and the parents don't deal with the misbehavior, I assume that they are wimps.

Well, as a convicted abuser yourself, that hardly surprises me.

I am not a "convicted abuser" or any sort of "abuser." You just committed another libel. Contact your lawyer.

The state of Georgia has a different view on that. There's a charge in
Florida, as well.

You are the one committing libel, peterson. Contact your lawyer and prepare your defense, or else keep your fingers away from the keyboard from now on.

Consider yourself warned, bozo.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:30:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I did answer the question. I am not qualified to decide the details.
That is the purpose of experts, and unlike you, I defer to expert
opinion.

You completely missed the point, as usual. There are NO experts on such matters.

There is no reason that we can't have experts on such matters.

However, you would allow a "government expert" the opportunity to effectively shut down such discussion on the radio.

The fairness doctrine is about ensuring equal access, not about
restricting any specific speech.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:30:48 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

I did answer the question. I am not qualified to decide the details.
That is the purpose of experts, and unlike you, I defer to expert
opinion.

You completely missed the point, as usual. There are NO experts on such matters.

There is no reason that we can't have experts on such matters.

Incorrect. No one person, or group of people, can possibly decide what all of the opposing viewpoints are to quotas/affirmative action for short people is, other than perhaps to say "No to any quotas for anyone," which doesn't really make for much of a discussion, now does it? Their guesses would not be any better than those of talk show host, or most anyone else.


However, you would allow a "government expert" the opportunity to effectively shut down such discussion on the radio.

The fairness doctrine is about ensuring equal access, not about
restricting any specific speech.

If the talk show host wanted to have a guest spend an hour talking about affirmative action for short people, then the station would have to waste another hour about affirmative action for tall people, another hour about affirmative action for blondes, another about affirmative action for Presbyterians, etc. Faced with that, the station would probably choose to air something much less controversial. Result: free speech restricted.

It's obviously best to keep the government out of it.