Carlwarker Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by Phanerothyme As far as this argument goes, everyone is using a different understanding of the term 'Free Speech' - hence very little will elucidated as a result. Failing to define terms at the beginning leads to confusion like this. Free means FREE - not limited. Hence 'free speech' means being able to say what you like – independent of the consequences or the feelings of other people. Anything other is NOT free speech - which we do not have in this society. Again: 'sticks and stones ...etc.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by Carlwarker Pardon! Nowhere have I stated that I ‘want’ anything – you INFERRED that. And, ‘building regulations’, what are you on about? – another example, not just of inference, but of hallucination, and the thought-police mentality again. Please learn to read AND comprehend (not infer or hallucinate) what I wrote on the wind-turbine thread and this one. I am, actually, in favour of them as an energy source, and nowhere, have I stated otherwise, but I would rather not have them placed in the few remaining, relatively unspoiled, parts of Britain. As regards ‘you want totally unregulated freedom of speech irrespective of whether that speech offends someone.’ you are correct (this time, for once) … sticks and stones … etc. When you argue that you would rather not have them placed somewhere you consider unspoiled then I felt I was correct in inferring that you would want some form of control or regulation to prevent this. In my post I was merely asking why it is alright to regulate one thing, structures, but not another, offensive language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlwarker Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by Belle What is knee jerk is people like you and T020 suggesting that I am intolerant (because I wont tolerate other people's intolerance?) every time I post anything But you shant stop me though, because the freedom of speech is as much mine as it is yours Someone whose contribution to a thread on the origin of place names involves making fun of cities because of their sizeable ethnic communities, needs no defence from you, he clearly knows he is walking on the wild side. People who tell prejudiced jokes know that they are bound to offend some people, it goes with the territory. I dont know why you should find it remarkable that those of us who are offended should comment. - and where you are concerned, I have no sense of humour whatsoever. I would find it remarkable if you didn't comment and I'm all for it. But that applies to EVERYONE not just you. Advocating free speech does not infer agreeing (or disagreeing) with what someone says - it simply infers that they have a right to say it. And as regards your sense of humour, it seems to be non-existent. But, hey, don’t get your knickers in a twist, it’s a public forum, you’re allowed your opinion – as others are allowed theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlwarker Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by max When you argue that you would rather not have them placed somewhere you consider unspoiled then I felt I was correct in inferring that you would want some form of control or regulation to prevent this. In my post I was merely asking why it is alright to regulate one thing, structures, but not another, offensive language. You were making a personal attack on my integrity (... my sheer hypocrisy) – which is fine, if it is true. However, I did not argue anything, I simply stated a personal preference – nowhere did I state or imply that I wanted some form of control or regulation. Yet another example of incorrect inference and false reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belle Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by Carlwarker I would find it remarkable if you didn't comment and I'm all for it. But that applies to EVERYONE not just you. Advocating free speech does not infer agreeing (or disagreeing) with what someone says - it simply infers that they have a right to say it. And as regards your sense of humour, it seems to be non-existent. But, hey, don’t get your knickers in a twist, it’s a public forum, you’re allowed your opinion – as others are allowed theirs. I am glad that you find my willingness to keep on engaging with this Forum and to continue to contribute to various threads, as something you are all for. I never said that other people should not also support this wonderful forum by posting their views, I merely reserve the right to disagree when necessary. A right I know you would uphold on my behalf. Perhaps there is less between us than you think. I have a great sense of humour as long as it is not dependent on misogyny (did I spell that right, it doesnt look right) or blind prejudice. I spend many happy hours in the comedy club, paying good money to be entertained by good performers. Perhaps the truth is that I find less to laugh about in the words of some of the people you defend. Those who get their kicks out of highlighting differences and advocating racial, sexual or class differences, for example. I sense that you dont agree with them but that you defend their right so to say. I probably agree with you. We need to be open to discussion about sensitive issues. But we dont need to kick people like me who have a strong sense of what is right and what is diversive (another word I am not sure of, but I think you know what I mean, being a wordsmith yourself). I love the world and all its people, I am by no means in the minority, not in this forum and not in the world. We must keep saying that we feel this way, because it is a very small counter to the people who would like the world to be much smaller and more closely defined. I know it can get up the noses of those people who see things in a different way, but that is the glory and wonder of this site, it lets us all have our say and lets others read our words and pitch themselves at whatever level they feel most suited to. I dont mind being criticised for being a staunch upholder of the rights of all men But I do mind personal unnecessary attacks. Perhaps you might think again, it is your choice, but I would hope that you would see that I am more nurturer of the oppressed than a self-server. It doesnt matter in the end. The world is big enough to accomodate us both, and all between and all outside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Originally posted by Carlwarker Blah blah Originally posted by Max Blah blah again What a complete waste of space. Someone could have created a masterpiece. Instead, an entire page of a thread about the origin of the Sheffield name is just wasted on petty squabbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Originally posted by alchresearch What a complete waste of space. Someone could have created a masterpiece. Instead, an entire page of a thread about the origin of the Sheffield name is just wasted on petty squabbling. Nurse! He's out of bed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiffy Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Hiya, A long long time ago Sheffield town was the area of what is the town centre today - it had a castle, an orchard (Orchard Square and lots of small industrial areas. The surrounding area was mainly farmland and the King's hunting grounds hence Deerlands and Doe Royd (Royd means clearing). As Sheffield's industry grew so did the need for housing as more people migrated to the area where work and a wage could be found. There was indeed a river Sheaf but also lots of sheaves of corn - sheaf - field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiffy Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Hiya Sidla, have a look on http://www.thenortheast.fsnet.co.uk/ which has a section on place names. Also try http://www.knowhere.co.uk/518.html and find the Leicester version - your answer could be in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango2 Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Originally posted by tiffy Hiya, A long long time ago Sheffield town was the area of what is the town centre today - it had a castle, an orchard (Orchard Square and lots of small industrial areas. The surrounding area was mainly farmland and the King's hunting grounds hence Deerlands and Doe Royd (Royd means clearing). As Sheffield's industry grew so did the need for housing as more people migrated to the area where work and a wage could be found. There was indeed a river Sheaf but also lots of sheaves of corn - sheaf - field. Thankyou to this person for returning to the point in hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.