Stan you seem to be so dim you can’t even recall the comments you made one day ago nor the wit to understand the implications of your own inept metaphor. I suppose it comes of having the IQ and memory of a goldfish.

Having thoroughly trashed the arguments and logic of the simian retards such as yourself Simple Sam BliarSycophant et al in that other place it is pointless to continue; Indeed it would be cruel to humiliate you further. You remind me of the playground wimp having suffered a beating who, when at a suitably safe distance, mutters “I’ll get you next time, you see if I don’t.” Knowing all the while that his yellow streak will never permit it.

As I’ve told you before you should learn to quit while you’re behind. And I must deliver my promise to MsRobisnon not to rattle the Monkey Cage.

I have concluded that this thread should end since I have no desire to let you humiliate yourself further; frankly I’m embarrassed for you.

It is such a pleasure to read your stout and determined efforts to prove that Mr Greeklawyer is guilty of high treason.

I agree with you. There is no difference between people like Amery, who actively supported Hitler and Greeklawyer who dares to insult St Antoine of Iknowmycauseisjust. As you point out with such perspicacity, that is because Amery tried to persuade the British people that they could not win the war, whilst Greeklawyer has suggested that Blair be asassinated. On the basis (which, my dear you do not enunciate entirely clearly, but which must be implied) that no one in Greeklawyer’s audience has a sense of:
1. Irony
2. Humour
3. Balance
they are precisely the same thing. Well done Stan!

Just in case you do ever meet a human being, it is as well to remember that irony, humour and balance is what distinguishes us from the Orang Utans. But, Stan, providing you keep staring that mirror straight in the eyes, you have no need to worry.

Yours, caringly

VM

P.S. Perhaps you could attempt to teach little Sam I Am to talk properly. If he has internet access he really should be past the stage of thinking it big to swear. Do take your parental responsibilities seriously Stan.

kthxbye

As I said at “the other place”, put-downs beget put-downs but you can still break the vicious cycle by doing the decent thing and just admit you got it very wrong on this one. Who knows, it might well count as a mitigating cicumstance come the day of reckoning.

You may well be able to use the word causitry or even autistry the problem appears to be that, as an ill-educated oik, you don’t appear to understand it.

Nor it seems to appear capable of understand moon23’s rather simple to understand arguments that shouting ‘Fire’ in a theatre is a defence if it is not believed, wasn’t intended, wasn’t reckless to and results in no panic injury death disaster nuclear war or sudden outbreak of lottery winnings.

And, for the nth+1 time, there was no such call nor have you shown that it was likely to be perceived as such.

Stan. Can I suggest that you go out and find a girlfriend? Or a boyfriend? Stalking me on this blog is both funny and funny but not healthy for you. I appreciate being bullied as a boy and sexually abused by your stepfather was painful, but put it all in the past and move on. Find new friends, ones who don’t say: “Oh God, You! Er, hi Stan. How are you?”

I didn’t check back to see that you had put the clause that it was a joke, it’s still a simplification of the situation though isn’t it! My point B (above) highlights different types of speech.

Here let me give you an example:

QUICK RUN THERE IS A FIRE!!!

This sentence is unlikely to result in the stampede scenario as portrayed in your analogy because of a number of variable factors. The main factor is that it’s written down and not shouted.

Within the specific context of an enclosed crowded space, where there is a risk of fire then shouting this would be irresponsible and dangerous. However you can’t create a universalized law that you should ban shouting fire in a crowded theatre, because there might actually be a fire. You have to look at each case individually.

As far as I’m aware this is why incitement is a rather difficult charge to bring against people, as people have free will and agency, who can tell what has influenced them.

When written on a blog where you have time to digest the information and make your own decision. You also have to take into account the humors context in which the post was written.

The crowded theatre example becomes meaningless as soon as you start to examine the complexity of the example. Probably why the US supreme court didn’t buy it as an argument when it was used to try and prosecute commies distributed literature.