from that article:It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely. However Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate
speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these
groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >dislike?"
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >>I accept that is your unsupported opinion
from that article:It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely.
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate
speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>dislike?"
HoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:19:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt multiple other places.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >>>I accept that is your unsupported opinion
from that article:It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely.
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate >>>speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>>dislike?"
Yes she/they did - the lockdowns etc were exactly that (or worse) - no surprise that you have forgotten eh?HoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
As above. How about you stop providing unsupported opinions and see If I do the same, but you first old man.The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I accept that your unsupported assertion is your personal opinion, but
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:19:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept >that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >multiple other places.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >>>>I accept that is your unsupported opinion
from that article:It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely.
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate >>>>speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>>>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>>>dislike?"
Yes she/they did - the lockdowns etc were exactly that (or worse) - no surpriseHoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
that you have forgotten eh?
As above. How about you stop providing unsupported opinions and see If I do the
The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
same, but you first old man.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 02:09:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyI repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I accept that your unsupported assertion is your personal opinion, but
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:19:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not >>>accept
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyoneI accept that is your unsupported opinion
It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely.
from that article:
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate >>>>>>speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>>>>>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>>>>>dislike?"
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>>multiple other places.
Yes she/they did - the lockdowns etc were exactly that (or worse) - no >>>surpriseHoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
that you have forgotten eh?
you have not given any example of a political party or anyone else >>encouraging hate speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just
the speech these groups benefit from, while cracking down and
intimidating speech they dislike. I recall the National Party at the
time arguing that lockdowns should have happened earlier, or later,
and lifted either earlier or later; and that they should have been
imposed over a wider area or a smaller area; and I cannot recall any >>intimidating speech. Perhaps you could give an example . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept >that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >multiple other places.
I did in gact give an example - the lockdowns were an attack on freedom of >expression - in spades!
I repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
As above. How about you stop providing unsupported opinions and see If I do >>>the
The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
same, but you first old man.
My opinion was supported by this article: >>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >>You appear to believe that the evidence in that article is not true,
but you provide no evidence of that . . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept >that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >multiple other places.
I don't need to give an example I am exercising the same right that you >"demand" freedom of expression.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 02:09:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyI repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I accept that your unsupported assertion is your personal opinion, but
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:19:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not >>accept
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyoneI accept that is your unsupported opinion
It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely.
from that article:
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate >>>>>speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>>>>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>>>>dislike?"
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>multiple other places.
Yes she/they did - the lockdowns etc were exactly that (or worse) - no >>surpriseHoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
that you have forgotten eh?
you have not given any example of a political party or anyone else >encouraging hate speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just
the speech these groups benefit from, while cracking down and
intimidating speech they dislike. I recall the National Party at the
time arguing that lockdowns should have happened earlier, or later,
and lifted either earlier or later; and that they should have been
imposed over a wider area or a smaller area; and I cannot recall any >intimidating speech. Perhaps you could give an example . . .
I repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -As above. How about you stop providing unsupported opinions and see If I do >>the
The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
same, but you first old man.
My opinion was supported by this article: >https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >You appear to believe that the evidence in that article is not true,
but you provide no evidence of that . . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 02:09:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyI repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I accept that your unsupported assertion is your personal opinion, but
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:19:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not >>>accept
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyoneI accept that is your unsupported opinion
It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely.
from that article:
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate >>>>>>speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>>>>>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>>>>>dislike?"
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>>multiple other places.
Yes she/they did - the lockdowns etc were exactly that (or worse) - no >>>surpriseHoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
that you have forgotten eh?
you have not given any example of a political party or anyone else >>encouraging hate speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just
the speech these groups benefit from, while cracking down and
intimidating speech they dislike. I recall the National Party at the
time arguing that lockdowns should have happened earlier, or later,
and lifted either earlier or later; and that they should have been
imposed over a wider area or a smaller area; and I cannot recall any >>intimidating speech. Perhaps you could give an example . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt multiple other places.
I did in gact give an example - the lockdowns were an attack on freedom of expression - in spades!
I repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
As above. How about you stop providing unsupported opinions and see If I do >>>the
The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
same, but you first old man.
My opinion was supported by this article: >>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >>You appear to believe that the evidence in that article is not true,
but you provide no evidence of that . . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt multiple other places.
I don't need to give an example I am exercising the same right that you "demand" freedom of expression.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 07:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 02:09:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyI repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I accept that your unsupported assertion is your personal opinion, but >>>you have not given any example of a political party or anyone else >>>encouraging hate speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just >>>the speech these groups benefit from, while cracking down and >>>intimidating speech they dislike. I recall the National Party at the >>>time arguing that lockdowns should have happened earlier, or later,
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:19:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not >>>>accept
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyoneI accept that is your unsupported opinion
It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely.
from that article:
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate >>>>>>>speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>>>>>>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>>>>>>dislike?"
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>>>multiple other places.
Yes she/they did - the lockdowns etc were exactly that (or worse) - no >>>>surpriseHoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
that you have forgotten eh?
and lifted either earlier or later; and that they should have been >>>imposed over a wider area or a smaller area; and I cannot recall any >>>intimidating speech. Perhaps you could give an example . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>multiple other places.
I did in gact give an example - the lockdowns were an attack on freedom of >>expression - in spades!
I repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
As above. How about you stop providing unsupported opinions and see If I do >>>>the
The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
same, but you first old man.
My opinion was supported by this article: >>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >>>You appear to believe that the evidence in that article is not true,
but you provide no evidence of that . . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not accept
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>multiple other places.
I don't need to give an example I am exercising the same right that you >>"demand" freedom of expression.
Tony, there was no suppression of speech relating to any part of the
Covid response;
there was plenty of hate speech, misinformation,
intimidating speech and mis-information from the then opposition, with
no crackdowns on any of that from the then government.
Your misunderstanding is profound; I do not see any point in
prolonging this thread.
On 2025-06-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Exactly. Of course there was suppression of speech. Hugely.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 07:20:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 02:09:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyI repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I accept that your unsupported assertion is your personal opinion, but >>>>you have not given any example of a political party or anyone else >>>>encouraging hate speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just >>>>the speech these groups benefit from, while cracking down and >>>>intimidating speech they dislike. I recall the National Party at the >>>>time arguing that lockdowns should have happened earlier, or later,
On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 00:19:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not >>>>>accept
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone
It certainly could, but isn't currently and is extremely unlikely. >>>>>>I accept that is your unsupported opinion
from that article:
"could free speech advocacy in certain hands be about allowing hate >>>>>>>>speech, misinformation, miscontextual speech, or just the speech these >>>>>>>>groups benefit from, while cracking down and intimidating speech they >>>>>>>>dislike?"
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>>>>multiple other places.
Yes she/they did - the lockdowns etc were exactly that (or worse) - no >>>>>surpriseHoweverNo, but if you really believe that, give an example.
Ardern and co certainly were travelling down that path.
that you have forgotten eh?
and lifted either earlier or later; and that they should have been >>>>imposed over a wider area or a smaller area; and I cannot recall any >>>>intimidating speech. Perhaps you could give an example . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not >>>accept
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>>multiple other places.
I did in gact give an example - the lockdowns were an attack on freedom of >>>expression - in spades!
I repeat for the benefit of a low comprehension child -
As above. How about you stop providing unsupported opinions and see If I >>>>>do
The article is biased beyond reason.I accept that is also your unsupported opinion . . .
the
same, but you first old man.
My opinion was supported by this article: >>>>https://mountaintui.substack.com/p/why-is-nz-initiative-writing-to-everyone >>>>You appear to believe that the evidence in that article is not true, >>>>but you provide no evidence of that . . . .
I am as entitled to those as you are, the difference is that you do not >>>accept
that I am and yet you spout unsupported opinions daily here and no doubt >>>multiple other places.
I don't need to give an example I am exercising the same right that you >>>"demand" freedom of expression.
Tony, there was no suppression of speech relating to any part of the
Covid response;
So which planet were you on Rich?
there was plenty of hate speech, misinformation,
intimidating speech and mis-information from the then opposition, with
no crackdowns on any of that from the then government.
Your misunderstanding is profound; I do not see any point in
prolonging this thread.
No, agreed. Please stop Rich.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 67:03:09 |
| Calls: | 9,813 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,305 |