Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 30th Apr 2006 16:10 UTC, submitted by Mitarai
Permalink for comment 119694
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-06
Ok - this is really cracking me up:
"Rights goes both ways. As much as RMS got the right to protest, the architect from ATI got the right to transmit his message(s) without such disruptions. It's something that "freedom advocates" seem to forget."
WHACHO TALKING ABOUT WILLIS ! ??
`Transmit his message without disruptions'?
Say what? The guy was just sitting there silently ... what's `the disruption'? Just because he held a sign he was a disruption? And I really wonder:
1.) What they were thinking when they called the security. 2.) What that guy trying to get Rms out of the room thought he was doing.
No evaluation of the situation. No questions asked. No one even though `Hey, maybe, JUST MAYBE this guy has the _right_ to do this'. What kind of a dictatorship is this? What kind of attitude is this anyway? To those of you who would have their little ego hurt by an act like that of RMS (poor deers), I have an advice:
Grow up
Edited 2006-04-30 19:54