It seems everyone else has lost interest in this thread otherwise I'd be tempted to simply ignore this response. But seeing as there's no discussion to derail by pursuing it...
I have to say I'm beginning to suspect you're having me on here. You're not seriously as outraged as you make out are you - because I criticised your reference to Gavin Anderson, saying that I wouldn't respond to it - or some such?
and I will defend your right to say whatever you want in whichever way you want wherever you want (within reason).
No you will not.
Oh yes I will (sorry, I can't think of anything more appropriate than a pantomime response to that one)!
The only way to limit me to your personal definition of "reasonable" free speech is to sew my mouth shut with a needle and thread.
Do not even suggest that free speech requires some arbitrator to decide on what is "reasonable" or "responsible" to define limits to that which is by definition unlimited. You are not responsible for my speech, you are responsible for your own.
Melodrama aside, you are correct with respect to my only being responsible for my own speech. I have no interest whatsoever in limiting your speech to whatever 'my personal definition of reasonable'. The 'within reason' qualifier was simply an acknowledgement to what I tend to agree are sensible limits to free speech as exemplified by Wendell Holmes Jr's 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'. I was not referring to what you say in this thread or on this or any forum. I don't know of any clearer way I could say that I accept and would not wish to impinge or restrict in any way your freedom of speech.
Regarding this thread, I had merely expressed a preference for the tone here and after your Gavin reference, I had implied that in my opinion you had not respected that and that I would not respond to itf. You jumped on your high horse. I accepted that and said you're welcome to say what you want. I was just politely asking - from the top - that opinions here be expressed in a much narrower format than free speech allows. I requested that, you chose otherwise. So be it. I'm not offended. I haven't a clue what you're so hot under the collar about!
Non-contentious speech has never required protecting. Controversial speech is the only form of speech that needs the principle of free speech for it's protection.
Yes, absolutely. Here at least we are both on the same page, if only you could see that!
Your hypocritical and contradictory attack against the principles of free-speech, which you have cleverly disguised as a defence of free-speech, deserve just as fierce a denigration as Gavin Andresen's conceited attacks on Bitcoin's principles.
Oh my, and don't you love it when you believe that's happened because you can feel self-righteous in going off the handle and laying into those who offend you so!
Look Carlton, Please go back and read it again. If you take away your apparent misinterpretation of my 'within reason' and accept I was talking about principle (seeing as that was the direction you'd gone in), not about whatever you may choose to say in the thread I'd started (the moderators would jump in and intervene LOOOOONG before I'd say anything here 'should not be said'. The rest was just an expression of a preference. And if you understand free speech as well as you believe you do, you'll realise I do have a right to express a preference.
Don't do it again
Get a grip! Who do you think you are, my mother?!!
I will also defend my right to request, at least in this thread that we keep things civil and, even if by implication that we drop the ad homs. I won't either apologise for responding to something I find to be unhelpful accordingly - even if I'm wrong and Gavin actually is...... (not that I agree with you).
... I'm trying to draw attention to the fundamental and important distinction between saying something is foolish and calling someone a fool - or worse.
Who is making ad hominem statements? Provide evidence
Are you seriously trying to claim here that saying that someone has 'gone full retard' is not an attack on a person but on the substance of his argument?
At this point, I think we've gone past any hope of you and I deriving any benefit from taking this further. I haven't yet, but seeing as you went to the trouble of writing the rest, I will at least respect that and read it and give it consideration - but I won't respond because I believe by now it's a waste both of your time and mine.
I'll wish you the best.