[Rushtalk] California pounds another nail in coffin of First Amendment

Stephen Frye stephen.frye at outlook.com
Sat Sep 22 13:48:05 MDT 2018


Read the bill and know for yourself.  And yes, some of the previous articles you have posted were dead ass wrong.  That isn’t smugness, John.  It’s fact.  And I made no implication whatsoever about this article.  I asked you a simple question:  have you read it?  I have.  And I still make no claim whatsoever about you article.  I simply stick with my question.  And it begs another:  why are you so against verifying your source for yourself?  If you don’t want to, that’s fine.  I don’t get it, but that’s OK.  A the same time, if I do verify/validate an article, this or any other, and truly find it is inaccurate, why would you so tenaciously hold onto it when you could jest as easily verify for yourself?  I don’t get that, either.

The media these days are so filled with inaccuracies, and sometimes outward untruths, that I believe it behooves us to dig a tad deeper.  Maybe I’ll find the article was right, maybe I’ll find otherwise.  But at least I’ll know for sure.  Our previous exchange about drinking straws clearly showed that you refused to accept any information other than what you had seen/heard in the media, when that information (that which you posted) was totally wrong.

If I read (or hear in the traffic report) that a certain freeway or ramp is open, and my next door neighbor just drover through there and it was still closed, I would tend to believe his report, rather than telling him he is full of shit because I just read in the paper that it’s open.  You seem to lean in the other direction.

If I don’t know about an article, I will probably ask questions.  If I know it’s right, I tend to agree with it.  If I know it’s wrong, I will say so.  Again, that’s not smugness, John.  But I guess it can approach that when you continually tell me I am full of shit in favor of your article.

You’re among the first here to jump into criticism of any article you deem inaccurate.  No media source is infallible – including WND.  Articles are written by people.  People are, by definition. Biased.  That bias reads through.  People reading articles are biased.  When the biases reinforce each other, we need to extra diligent.  We need to be acutely aware that the words we are reading are feeding right into our own prejudices and beliefs, which makes them all the more appealing and agreeable.  That combination can easily lead to misperceptions and even misinformation.  And in this day and age it is rampant.

In addition, your (unwarranted) inference about my belief in the incorrectness of this particular is based on the fact that there has been error in some previous articles.  For me to assume that every article is wrong simply because a few are, is again a non sequitur – illogical.  Just as it is a non sequitur – illogical – to assume that all of their articles are 100 % accurate simply because some or many might be.  Right?  For me, that means that reality lies somewhere in between, and, as such, warrants deeper investigation if it is possible.  In the case of this article, it is not only possible, it is simple:  I read the bill.  After reading the bill, I might find the article is right on target, way off base, or somewhere in between.  And that is all I asked you to do, and you seem to have dug in your heels, put your fingers in your ears, and are now just chastising me for even suggesting a modicum of vetting.

You win.  It ain’t worth it.  Sorry I even suggested it.

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com <rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> On Behalf Of John Quayle
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 11:04 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] California pounds another nail in coffin of First Amendment


                    Stephen, there is nothing overt, but you cannot deny that you smugness implies that the article (and previous ones that I have posted) is incorrect. Am I reading something into what is not actually there? You tell me..............

On 9/22/2018 1:44 PM, Stephen Frye wrote:

  1.  Many outsiders “think” they know more.  And when they whine and gloat amongst themselves, there’s no one to point out deficiencies.  And further, when inaccuracies are identified, they just put their fingers in their ears and go on ranting even more loudly praising the authenticity of the media over that of first-hand accounts.  They won’t even entertain the notion that they might have been given bad information.  I mean, let’s face it, if it’s in the media, it must be true.  Especially if it plays to my own beliefs.  Then by god, it’s gospel.
  2.  I made no claim whatsoever about the authenticity of this article.  Please point out – specifically – where I did.

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> <rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com><mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> On Behalf Of John Quayle
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:35 AM
To: rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
Subject: Re: [Rushtalk] California pounds another nail in coffin of First Amendment


                    I'm just saying that outsiders seem to know more about what's going on in YOUR state than you do. Now, you can deny and label this as fake news, but World Net Daily isn't The National Enquirer..............

On 9/22/2018 11:25 AM, Stephen Frye wrote:
Don’t worry, John.  I can speak smart ass just as wells as anyone.  Again, instead of sarcastic – and quite ignorant – implication, if you want to know something, just ask.  It’s so much easier, so much more accurate, and so much more mature.  But then …

From: rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com<mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> <rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com><mailto:rushtalk-bounces at csdco.com> On Behalf Of John Quayle
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 8:47 PM
To: Rushtalk Discussion List <rushtalk at csdco.com><mailto:rushtalk at csdco.com>
Subject: [Rushtalk] California pounds another nail in coffin of First Amendment


California pounds another nail in coffin of First Amendment<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclick1.mail.wnd.com%2Fhvmcvlgljnhzjpjdzswrnzmgjfzsmpswmbjnwqsshwwf_adptdtptnmhdthsptdk.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf77081c829714b7db99808d620b1bab3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636732345041145885&sdata=YmbnnF4P6aBGXFpQGzUB8ikoKuV1ZOGwc0%2FSysf8QrA%3D&reserved=0>



It makes sense California would do this.

A state that passes laws prohibiting parents of children with gender dysphoria from getting professional help ... or proposing a law that would have effectively banned Bible sales and made churches targets of LGBTQ lawsuits ... doesn't care about the First Amendment.

California is one giant slippery slope for liberty, so this bill to fight "fake news" on social media awaiting Gov. Brown's signature should be no surprise.

But it should scare you.

Fortunately, legal teams are geared up and telling the state to bring it on ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclick1.mail.wnd.com%2Fvyghfqtqdrjndzdcnkgbrnmtdynkmzkgmpdrgvkkjgjr_adptdtptnmhdthsptdk.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf77081c829714b7db99808d620b1bab3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636732345041155890&sdata=3af%2F1bFGDW2VNY5f3p%2Fe09KxCqCf%2BDEWK4sjrbvBdqc%3D&reserved=0>






Maybe Stephen Frye  doesn't believe this, either?


Link<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclick1.mail.wnd.com%2Fhwncvlgljnhzjpjdzswrnzmgjfzsmpswmbjnwqsshwmc_adptdtptnmhdthsptdk.html%3Fa%3D51AFAB07-BCBE-46D0-8FB9-48C4683B0624%26b%3Dhmnhbhwh&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf77081c829714b7db99808d620b1bab3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636732345041175918&sdata=d2g50hWYyw9Rpq7r%2F%2FQQ%2BIuKM3Y5vTxpm5nHuVfYt1g%3D&reserved=0>





_______________________________________________

Rushtalk mailing list

Rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>

http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fkalos.csdco.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frushtalk&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf77081c829714b7db99808d620b1bab3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636732345041185923&sdata=WuUOnciQxb4afvhf%2BXRqHL8IM4AWpgrIHUBlD6XNdg0%3D&reserved=0>





_______________________________________________

Rushtalk mailing list

Rushtalk at csdco.com<mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>

http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fkalos.csdco.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frushtalk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3f794daa42ba4586b6f808d620b5d716%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636732362693501394&sdata=hVH51dNfdPmrW5YK%2BP7u%2Fv4oc6s66Ia6z9KXyWpmYoI%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20180922/efa8e069/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list