That is an obviously sexist and irrelevant attitude. Completely irrelevant, politically incorrect, and factually disingenuous. Does not matter who recorded it - a man, a woman, an amoeba, ET, or a robot. Only a misogynist would see her sex relevant.

Point was obvious. A second problem exists. We must define what is private and what is not. A problem made even worse by extremists who believe the Constitution does not provide a right to privacy. Or others who hype privacy but then insist public figures are fair game (ie paparazzi).

He may have long been a closet racist. That is a separate issue. Did anyone have the right to publish his private (and maybe exploratory) thoughts? At what point does one no longer have privacy to explore politically incorrect concepts?

I was exploring a politically incorrect concept.

The point at which it leaves your brain. That's why personal interviews with people's family, friends, and acquaintances are a routine part of background checks for security clearances. Anything you say; or, write can somehow be used against you by anyone possessing knowledge of what was communicated regardless of how it was obtained. If obtained illegally, you can seek compensation; but, it probably won't make you whole. It doesn't even matter if what you expressed was intended to be taken seriously; or, only in jest. BTW, thank you for being my demonstrator on that last point.

There's my cue.

That is the obvious privacy issue. And the relevant point (since her sex obviously was irrelevant).

1) You control the release of what you write. 2) What others say about you is only hearsay - their opinion; not yours. 3) Secret recordings are not hearsay and are not controlled by you. These three completely different concepts should be defined by universal rules for privacy ... that do not exist.

Abdul-Jabbar's commentary properly identified a second issue here. We do not condemn someone for violating CA's (reported) privacy laws ... that do not exist in all states or many other nations. The word 'niger' causes so much emotional distress but a fundamental violation of privacy does not?

Obviously what is written and publically released is completely different from private thoughts explored in a private setting. Secret recordings of a person making exploratory statements in an uncontrolled emotional outburst (regardless of whether he believes them or not) should be a major privacy violation. For all we know, one might be practicing in private for a future acting role or to explore someone else’s thought patterns. Recording is a problem only made worse by the many who say no such privacy rights exist in the Constitution.

Instead you were all caught up in a misogyny issue that is irrelevant. You saw misogyny rather than an obvious violation of privacy - which was his obvious point. So yes we agree. Your point was misogyny so that Abdul-Jabbar's obvious privacy complaint was completely ignored.

Yabut, yabut, she's still a bitch. :p:

The African river, or, the African republic?

Not if it's stolen.

Not if they're quoting you. Hearsay is admissible in the court of public opinion (especially if corroborated by other people or polygraph), administrative proceedings, and judicial proceedings under various circumstances (e.g. death bed statements, absent victims as a judge ruled in the Drew Peterson case).

You have complete control over what's secretly recorded. Just keep your mouth shut when you feel like saying something you know you might regret if it went public. Additionally, there's a room within a room for everything.

It all goes to one concept: Too many people today believe that the end justifies the means for the expectation of universal rules of privacy to be grounded in reality.

There are people who don't condemn Snowden for violating secrecy laws. It goes back to the one concept stated above.

Not if one has a whistleblower mentality that allows for violations without condemnation.

For all we know, one might be practicing in private for a future terrorist action or to explore someone else's pain thresholds.

I bet that scares the Bejesus out of those who would pick and choose what rights people should have based upon their own interpretation of Constitutional Amendments. You know, the ones who can dish it out; but, can't take it.

I see you didn't comprehend this previous post. Let me 'splain it to you:

The "end" refers to exposing racism. The "means" refers to by violating privacy. The way I worded it was in consideration of Abdul-Jabbar's statements and the following observation:

You see tw, I addressed Abdul-Jabbar's concern, along with his way with words, with a way with words of my own. By the time I responded to you, I had already moved on to whimsy. In the future, please do try to keep up. It's the least you can do after subjecting people to so many useless opinions.

This topic has two distinct issues. First was obvious - potential racism.

Abdul-Jabbar identified a second issue - violation of privacy.

During Nam, those who could not deal logically hyped 'ends justifies the means' and 'means justify the ends'. They needed rhetoric to muddy discussion due to nothing useful, correct, or relevant to contribute. They choose to throw everything in a big pot. Sexobon has done same.

Since he confused Abdul-Jabbar's comment with misogyny, he must confuse privacy with other issues such as racism. Even adding a possible thief into the soup. He even wants to throw Snowden into the pot so that you will ignore irrelevant misogynist comments. Apparently confusing issues justifies his actions.

He admits to doing this facetiously for personal entertainment. Ignoring that Abdul-Jabbar defined a second and relevant issue. Abdul-Jabbar’s comments are admirable and commendable. He mentions an issue we still have not addressed.

It all goes to the relevant and overriding mindset of people like tw who want to pick and choose which Constitutional protections and laws derived therefrom are admirable and commendable to uphold and which can be subverted by his Democracy of One. The current atmosphere, in which infringement on protections occurs without condemnation (sometimes even with admiration and commendation), was created by tw and his ilk.

Abdul-Jabbar's comments may have been widely seen as admirable and commendable at some point in the past; but, are today reduced to being quaint and outdated. Tw has been identified by others here as promulgating outdated information and ideas in his self centered obsession to always be right. He turns a blind eye to those who's Constitutional rights and protections under law are being infringed when he doesn't agree that they should have them. Then he complains if he even thinks others are doing the same in matters that he advocates. Yet, he'll never connect the two, he'll always keep them separate in his mind, just as he keeps himself separate from the mainstream. He apparently thinks that denying the relevancy of his hypocritical behavior between issues helps obfuscate his systematic double standards.

Oh that tw, not one brain in his poor old head. He still hasn't caught on that I'm procrastinating on the issue to mine the entertainment value in addressing his absurdities. So now I've had to explain it to him. The issue will still be there tomorrow and a hundred years from tomorrow. Tw, not so long: Algernon syndrome you know.

Apparently his wife is withholding sex again.

From this morning's edition of The Times:

Because humor I think.

You're probably right, Griff.

I, like the columnist, assumed that it was an error. If it had been they would probably have gone the whole hog and written it as 'Not suitable for miner's'. :)

Fashionably late?
 

Well I hope this is an exaggeration. All it takes is one chemical weapon attack in a major Western metropolitan area and it's 9/11 all over again. It's fundamentally an all or nothing proposition for the corner the President painted us into with his red line for Syria. We're not going to intervene militarily to save the Syrian people, just politically to save ourselves from the proliferation of chemical weapons. If we don't get it all, what's the point?

Why. In. The. Fucking. Hell. Would. You. Store. That. Shit. At. An. Airport?

Bus station must be full up.