Free Speech, not in France.

[Voltron]

Both France and Canada has similar laws, where you are not aloud to publicly declare your beliefs if they are against the official PC belief. They call it hate. Here in America we have freedom of speech not to protect those who say things you don't mind them saying but to protect those who say things you don't want to hear or even hate hearing. It is a form of brainwashing, or attempting to control the thoughts of their society by using such laws limiting free speech. Yes it can be argued that some speech must be limited like yelling fire in a movie theater, I don't believe this reaches that caliber.

PARIS - French actress-turned-animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was convicted Thursday of inciting racial hatred and ordered to pay $6,000 — the fourth such fine for the former sex symbol since 1997.

The Paris court sentenced Bardot, 69, for remarks in her book “A Scream in the Silence,” an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants and the jobless that shocked France last year.

In the book, she laments the “Islamization of France” and the “underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam.”

“Mme. Bardot presents Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders, responsible for terrorist acts and eager to dominate the French to the extent of wanting to exterminate them,” the court said.

France’s 5-million-member Muslim community is the largest in Europe.

Bardot, who was not present for the verdict, denied the charges in a tearful court appearance last month, saying her book did not target Islam or people from North Africa.

She told the court France was going through a period of decadence and said she opposed interracial marriage.

“I was born in 1934, at that time interracial marriage wasn’t approved of,” she said.

“There are many new languages in the new Europe. Mediocrity is taking over from beauty and splendor. There are many people who are filthy, badly dressed and badly shaven.”

In her book, she also attacks homosexuals as “fairground freaks,” condemns the presence of women in government and denounces the “scandal of unemployment benefits.”

Bardot’s attacks on Muslims prompted anti-racism groups to launch legal proceedings against the former star, who turned her back on film after 46 films to concentrate on animal welfare.

Bardot, who in her 1960s heyday was the epitome of French feminine beauty, was fined $3,250 in January 1998 after being convicted of inciting racial hatred in comments about civilian massacres in Algeria.

Four months earlier, a court fined her for saying France was being overrun by sheep-slaughtering Muslims.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5181642/

I argued this point in another forum and those who argued for these laws argued that it is wrong to promote violence. She isn't promoting violence I don't think she simply stated what she believed.

[numediaman]

Slyhunter will defend any kind of hate speech (not to mention torture):

Tears, New Race-Hate Trial for France's Bardot
Thu May 6, 2:57 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) Bardot, 69, previously convicted of similar offences, is on trial over her book "A Scream in the Silence," an outspoken attack on gays, immigrants and the jobless which shocked France.

Of her prose style, Bardot said, "I'm not Balzac," a reference to the 19th century French literary great. That drew a wry, "The court had noticed," from the presiding judge.

In her book, the former film idol attacks homosexuals as "fairground freaks," condemns the presence of women in government and denounces the "scandal of unemployment benefit." She also criticized the "Islamization of France" -- which has a five million strong Muslim minority -- and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam."


So, according to Sly, we should bash the French (again) because they don't like hate speech, won't back an illegal war, and because their cuisine makes our food tastes look positively neanderthal (I made that part up).

[Voltron]

Slyhunter will defend any kind of hate speech (not to mention torture):

So the only kind of free speech you want is the Politically correct type well in that case we wouldn't need that amendment to protect our free speech rights.

[Sayhey]

It is too easy for Americans to jump to judgments about these kinds of laws in Europe. They have similar laws in Germany. We have such a short historical memory that we forget that a generation ago millions were butchered all over Europe in the name of racial hatred. We can argue, and I think we have a good case, for more freedom of political expression, but it should be done humbly from a country that did not go through the maelstrom of the Nazi occupation. Of course, it is ironic that many of those who are the quickest to criticize the French and other Europeans for these laws are the first to deny the right of dissent against this President.

[mactastic]

Is there a guarantee in France of the right to free speech in the way our constitution grants us in the US?

[Voltron]

Is there a guarantee in France of the right to free speech in the way our constitution grants us in the US?
Both Canada and Germany have similar anti hate laws. I don't know about their constitution myself.

[mactastic]

Both Canada and Germany have anti hate laws.

Huh? That's not what I asked at all. :confused:

[Sayhey]

Is there a guarantee in France of the right to free speech in the way our constitution grants us in the US?

The answer is yes. Here is the preamble of the Constitution of 1958 (http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/english/8ab.asp) (the current one.)

PREAMBLE

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946.

By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories that express the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived with a view to their democratic development.

Here is the Declaration of 1789 (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/declaration.html)

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man; every citizen can then freely speak, write, and print, subject to responsibility for the abuse of this freedom in the cases is determined by law.

For reference purposes here is the Preamble of the 1946 Constitution (http://www.elysee.fr/ang/instit/text2.htm).

[mactastic]

The answer is yes. Here is the preamble of the Constitution of 1958 (http://www.assemblee-nat.fr/english/8ab.asp) (the current one.)



Here is the Declaration of 1789 (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/declaration.html)



For reference purposes here is the Preamble of the 1946 Constitution (http://www.elysee.fr/ang/instit/text2.htm).

Thanks Sayhey.

I'm guessing that there are also some laws involved that we Americans aren't familiar with. Before I'd condemn the French for this I'd want to read up on how French courts have interpreted their laws.

[Sayhey]

I'm guessing that there are also some laws involved that we Americans aren't familiar with. Before I'd condemn the French for this I'd want to read up on how French courts have interpreted their laws.

I'm sure you're right that there is much here that we Americans are unfamiliar with. As I said in my first post, I think we don't take into account the history of the Nazi occupation and its impact on the French view of this. As always mac, it is refreshing to hear a sane voice on the subject that calls for more information before rushing to judgment.

[IJ Reilly]

France has laws? They've got a lot of nerve, those French.

[Neserk]

When the US was in its early infancy wasn't the concept of free speech new?

Or was I misled by my history teachers? It seems to me that we were the first modern nation to have the right to call our government morons. No?

Oh, -- my point. That France, the UK, and many European nations do not have free speech. I don't know about the rest of the world. My education on "the world" is limited :o

[blackfox]

Excellent post(s) Sayhey...I might add to the discussion, that the influx of a Muslim population is something that the EU and it's constituent countries probably fear. As Western Europe continues integration in the form of the EU, it is interesting to note that the membership is almost exclusively Traditionally Western...Christian (non-Orthodox), Rule-of-law, Democracies etc. (with the exception of Greece, and Cyprus). On one hand, I am sure France and the EU at large is wary of the destabilizing and costly effects of immigration from a culture who is generally less well-educated and poorer, but definitely culturally at odds with their host countries with regards to Religion, values, and mores. It is for these rather valid reasons that Turkey may never gain entrance to the EU, and why Bulgaria and Romania may also not (Orthodox/Byzantine Culture). It is also why Greece has often proved a troublesome anomaly in EU affairs (violated UN sanctions against Serbs[also Orthodox] and Macedonian blockade) and may head towards the periphery...
The point of all this is, that as Europe moves to more tightly intergrate itself based on commonality of Culture, minority culture can prove to be a potentially volatile threat. While Western values often encourage individual rights and freedoms, I believe it has to be very careful in dealing with a minority so at odds culturally, so as not to incite more devisiveness than already exist, especially not any violent reactions. So France must navigate a path of stable co-existence and possible integration with the Muslim minority, while still (rightfully) defending it's cultural values. It's decisiveness on the head-scarf issue was case in point - Cultural questions such as this do not lend themselves to compromise...neither French Authorities nor Muslim parents would approve a rule of Muslim
girls wearing a head-scarf every other day...they involve a yes-or-no, a zero sum choice.

So as the EU strives to define itself, it must define what it is not, or in opposition to...which is Islamic Culture (among others), yet stay true to it's values which allow for inclusiveness and respect for all cultures. France, as a core state of the EU (along with Germany) has to take this dichotomy very seriously...and I believe the limiting of disruptive, hateful rhetoric is the right choice in the interests of itself and the Union...

I have no comments about the anti-gay remarks, except for that same tendency to view that which is foreign and different with distrust and a tendency to confirm ones' own values in opposition to theirs...

Or Bridget could just be off her rocker...

[Sayhey]

Or Bridget could just be off her rocker...

LOL, there is that! She is a supporter of the far right National Front (Jean-Marie Le Pen's party.) This is akin to supporting David Duke or ex-Judge Moore. While I wouldn't advocate taking away the free speech of either of these two "gentlemen," I wouldn't advocate letting either of them get close to the levers of power either.

edit: for those unfamiliar with Le Pen's politics (and by extension Bardot's) here is a bio from the ADL (http://www.adl.org/international/le-pen_new.asp).

[takao]

hm last time i checked there where laws against discrimination (at least here), if your 'free speech' discriminate someone then your breaking the (in some cases constitutional) law and can be punished....

i don't know what this thread is about... looks correct for me

[edesignuk]

Oh, -- my point. That France, the UK, and many European nations do not have free speech.
The UK doesn't have free speech? :confused: :eek:

[dopefiend]

The UK doesn't have free speech? :confused: :eek:

Not to the extent that the U.S. does. :p

[edesignuk]

Not to the extent that the U.S. does. :p
You are joking right??

[dopefiend]

You are joking right??

Well no. I thought thats what was being explained :confused:

[Ugg]

Both France and Canada has similar laws, where you are not aloud to publicly declare your beliefs if they are against the official PC belief. They call it hate. Here in America we have freedom of speech not to protect those who say things you don't mind them saying but to protect those who say things you don't want to hear or even hate hearing. It is a form of brainwashing, or attempting to control the thoughts of their society by using such laws limiting free speech. Yes it can be argued that some speech must be limited like yelling fire in a movie theater, I don't believe this reaches that caliber.

I argued this point in another forum and those who argued for these laws argued that it is wrong to promote violence. She isn't promoting violence I don't think she simply stated what she believed.

You are allowed in France, to say things aloud http://forums.macrumors.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Different countries have every reason to write laws about what constitutes hate. Here in the US we still allow the kkk to exist and spout its vile message. That to me is hate speech and should not be allowed. We also permit neo Nazi groups whereas Germany and Austria don't.

BB is a mouthy, racist, zenophobic pig.

Why is it sly, that you think she is only expressing her beliefs but the moment that religious symbols are banned from the classroom it is proof that the French are vile human beings that shouldn't be allowed to walk the face of the earth? You can't have it both ways unless of course, all speech is allowed in all forms with no limitations. Get real and stop bashing the french just because boortz does.

[mactastic]

Well no. I thought thats what was being explained :confused:

We established earlier (thanks to Sayhey) that the French have a right to free speech just as we do. I would imagine Britain is similar.

[Voltron]

You are allowed in France, to say things aloud http://forums.macrumors.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Different countries have every reason to write laws about what constitutes hate. Here in the US we still allow the kkk to exist and spout its vile message. That to me is hate speech and should not be allowed. We also permit neo Nazi groups whereas Germany and Austria don't.

BB is a mouthy, racist, zenophobic pig.

Why is it sly, that you think she is only expressing her beliefs but the moment that religious symbols are banned from the classroom it is proof that the French are vile human beings that shouldn't be allowed to walk the face of the earth? You can't have it both ways unless of course, all speech is allowed in all forms with no limitations. Get real and stop bashing the french just because boortz does.
Freedom of speech and freedom of Religion. Its not either or, what is wrong with having both? Just because I think there should be freedom of Religion does not mean I'm against freedom of speech or visa versa. You seem to think they counter each other when they don't. And I don't do things just because Boortz does.

[Lyle]

We established earlier (thanks to Sayhey) that the French have a right to free speech just as we do. I would imagine Britain is similar.Yes, the difference seems to be the condition (as noted in Sayhey's earlier post) that those free speakers are "... subject to responsibility for the abuse of this freedom in the cases ... determined by law." And as you (mactastic) subsequently pointed out, the laws that define "abuse" of free speech are apparently quite different from country to country.

One might consider it a question of semantics to say that a group of people has the right to free speech, as long as they don't say things that are abuses of free speech. I think it's reasonable to say that free speech in the U.S. is "more free" than it is in other countries. Obviously, this means that you're more likely to hear things that might offend you, but I think I prefer it to the alternative of the government telling me what is and isn't "hate speech".

[mactastic]

Obviously, this means that you're more likely to hear things that might offend you, but I think I prefer it to the alternative of the government telling me what is and isn't "hate speech".

Just so long as we don't SEE anything that might offend us eh?... cough janetsnipple.... :p

I dunno, if money is consedered speech, why can't breasts be?

[radhak]

Not to the extent that the U.S. does. :p

I am not aware of any other country that pays so much reverence to free speech as the US. I personally feel it is over-emphasized and mis-placed, but that’s me. And I can say that, can’t I, under the free-speech act? ;)
Somehow I cannot understand how insulting others, saying they are ‘freaks’ is something to defend whole-heartedly.

Okay, conceptually, that is the acme of freedom per-se, but you need to take a ‘chill-pill’ when it comes to ground reality. Take this scenario : in some muslim-predominant third-world country, when (if) this book is released, somebody starts ‘these christian writers are insulting us’, which triggers off a christian-targetted riot and innocent people (or whatever religion) die. To douse this (sometimes even in anticipation), the local government bans the book. I think that would be a perfectly logical thing to do, and dang freedom of speech. In countries that have scarce resources for law-and-order situations, anything that adds to the volatility is totally unwelcome. And if you are smugly happy that such a situation would never arise in the US, I only have to say ‘Rodney King riots’. Different situation, but just as emotionally-triggered and uncontrollable.

On the other hand, I teach my toddler to be nice and not insult others. If she sees another girl in a hair setup or dress she thinks is weird, she better not say it out aloud. Or should I believe in her freedom of speech and allow her to talk as she thinks? If you denigrate ‘PC’, then what is PC here : celebrating the US constitution, or minor social norms?

[takao]

Different countries have every reason to write laws about what constitutes hate. Here in the US we still allow the kkk to exist and spout its vile message. That to me is hate speech and should not be allowed. We also permit neo Nazi groups whereas Germany and Austria don't.

for those interest the law is called "Verbotsgesetz 1947"
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9806511/materialien/verbotsgesetz.htm
the austrian police has a home page with email adress where you can inform them about homepages,internetnewsgroups etc. which are breaking the law (do a google search on "Wiederbetätigung" .. it's the first link..)
it is a constitutional law
punishment lies between 10-20 years prison.. if a person is considered dangerous the person get's life time

and there is a more common law against "Verhetzung" (which i wasn't able to translate in english....)
"Verhetzung
§ 283. (1) Wer öffentlich auf eine Weise, die geeignet ist, die
öffentliche Ordnung zu gefährden, zu einer feindseligen Handlung
gegen eine im Inland bestehende Kirche oder Religionsgesellschaft
oder gegen eine durch ihre Zugehörigkeit zu einer solchen Kirche
oder Religionsgesellschaft, zu einer Rasse, zu einem Volk, einem
Volksstamm oder einem Staat bestimmte Gruppe auffordert oder
aufreizt, ist mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren zu bestrafen.
(2) Ebenso ist zu bestrafen, wer öffentlich gegen eine der im
Abs. 1 bezeichneten Gruppen hetzt oder sie in einer die
Menschenwürde verletzenden Weise beschimpft oder verächtlich zu
machen sucht."

[Lyle]

Just so long as we don't SEE anything that might offend us eh?... cough janetsnipple.... :p
Good point. I am against pretty much all kinds of censorship (yes, I am still a Republican ;)). In my opinion, economic measures (i.e. boycotts and the like) work pretty effectively to keep things like "accidental" wardrobe malfunctions in check. If a large enough group of people don't like, say, Howard Stern, and stop listening to his radio show, and his advertisers start to pull out, etc. then it will go away on its own. Until that happens, turn your radio dial elsewhere and listen to something you like better. ;)

I dunno, if money is considered speech, why can't breasts be?I struggled to come up with a witty reply to this, but nothing so far. Please, fellow forum readers, don't let this quote from mactastic go to waste. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I struggled to come up with a witty reply to this, but nothing so far. Please, fellow forum readers, don't let this quote from mactastic go to waste. ;)

I'll try my breast, but in limited quantities.

[Sayhey]

I'll try my breast, but in limited quantities.

ooooh! that hurt, IJ! :p

[mactastic]

I'll try my breast, but in limited quantities.

Quit milking it IJ! :p

[IJ Reilly]

Well, this has been fun. Thanks for the mammaries!

[zimv20]

Lyle asked for something funny, but all he got was puns. :mad:

[IJ Reilly]

Lyle asked for something funny, but all he got was puns. :mad:

Those who complain the loudest about a pun are usually the first to repeat it. That's the rule of pun.

[zimv20]

Those who complain the loudest about a pun are usually the first to repeat it. That's the rule of pun.
if i break the rule, then i should be punished

[IJ Reilly]

if i break the rule, then i should be punished

That's right, you should be hung by your puns.

[Neserk]

I am not aware of any other country that pays so much reverence to free speech as the US. I personally feel it is over-emphasized and mis-placed, but that’s me. And I can say that, can’t I, under the free-speech act? ;)


Yes you can say that. And I can disagree.

Perhaps because I know what it is like to be of a minority opinion (ahem) and have my view trashed and have been told to shut up under no uncertain terms I greatly value free speech. I don't think it can be over-emphasized. Free speech is what makes the exchange of ideas etc. allowable.

[Stelliform]

....

[Neserk]

Also, the kkk has been in on the decline for decades despite their ability to say whatever they want. We all know what the kkk's are about, there is no mystery there. By outlawing membership and materials pertaining to the group, you are giving rebellious citizens a reason to join. It is like owning a switchblade knife in the U.S. As a teen I knew people who had them. Just because they were illegal made it twice as fun to own.
.


As much as I HATE what the KKK stands for and would love to shut them up I think you are right.

The best way to deal with hate speech isn't to silence through censorship but rather to eliminate it through education.

[Stelliform]

....

[Abstract]

I disagree. If you start banning certain speech then you are opening the door to prevent other forms of speech.

It does?

I like anti-discriminatory/anti-hate laws. I'll give up my right to spread hate if it helps the people who these comments were aimed at feel more at ease in their newly adopted home country. It doesn't lead to people losing more and more of their rights to free speech.

By outlawing membership and materials pertaining to the group, you are giving rebellious citizens a reason to join. It is like owning a switchblade knife in the U.S. As a teen I knew people who had them. Just because they were illegal made it twice as fun to own.


Actually, you're not giving them a reason to join. By allowing people to say hateful things, it changes the social climate, and Muslim people (in this case) may find more reason to feel the need to be more hateful towards french people. Educating people is great, but if people can go on television and say such things, they may think its socially acceptable to spread hate. Hate only spawns more hate from the other side, which would make the Muslim view of the French people more hateful.

You can say that people can make the decision to listen to this or not, but if you're young and this is the social climate you grew up in, then it'll determine a large part of what you deem acceptable as they grow older.

[IJ Reilly]

In the US at least we tend to believe that sunlight makes the best disinfectant. The concept of hate speech is a tough one. I believe it exists and in limited circumstances can be prohibited, but I think it has to be restricted to instances where the speech is intended to insight violence or to inhibit through intimidation someone's free exercise of their rights.

[Neserk]

And making it look ridiculous in movies. ;) Anybody seen Fletch Lives? :D


Yes!

[Stelliform]

....

[Neserk]

It does?

I like anti-discriminatory/anti-hate laws. I'll give up my right to spread hate if it helps the people who these comments were aimed at feel more at ease in their newly adopted home country. It doesn't lead to people losing more and more of their rights to free speech.


But who decides what "hate" is? Not to long ago supporting gay rights would have been considered hate to some. People's views change. Free Speech is an important part of that change.



Actually, you're not giving them a reason to join. By allowing people to say hateful things, it changes the social climate, and Muslim people (in this case) may find more reason to feel the need to be more hateful towards french people. Educating people is great, but if people can go on television and say such things, they may think its socially acceptable to spread hate. Hate only spawns more hate from the other side, which would make the Muslim view of the French people more hateful.


Change takes time. I was watching Malcolm X last night. What a powerful movie. The best way to change how people view things is through time and education. You can't force people to believe something they don't want to, but you can enlighten them. There is a whole psychology to changing people's attitudes. Making hate speech illegal doesn't do it. It is better to let them spew their hate and then stand up and say what you believe is the truth. Much more powerful and it actually works. Look how far we've come in 200 years!


You can say that people can make the decision to listen to this or not, but if you're young and this is the social climate you grew up in, then it'll determine a large part of what you deem acceptable as they grow older.

Depends on the person. Many thing I thought was wrong as a child/teenager I know longer do. I've grown. Obviously change happens or we'd still be selling people, keeping people segregated, and gay people would still be forced to marry memebers of the opposite sex and hide their sexuality.

Instead I have neighbors who Muslim, Buddhist, Christian (both CAtholic and protestant) and probably some religions I'm not aware of; African-American, Hispanic, Asain; straight and gay; single parents and married. Who would have thought 75 years ago we could all live within 200 yards of each other and not have a probelm?

Obviously something has caused this change. I'm thinking it is education, not censorship.

[Neserk]

I think that most of this debate has its roots in the fundamental differences in U.S. society and European society. We are all racial mutts in the U.S. My ancestry can be traced to, Ireland, England, France, Germany, and Native Americans. No matter how you spin it we were and are a melting pot. There are groups that spew racial hatred here, but due to our racial makeup, they would not be able to take a majority hold on this nation. (also with affirmative action, desegregation, and the hate crime laws these groups are curtailed. Just their message isn't restricted.)

Also true. You know the Irish were looked down upon when they first came to the US? My husband is mostly Irish. I'm English, German, Scottish and have a trace of either Moor or Native American (still debated) in my ancestory. And probably somethings I don't know about.

[Stelliform]

....

[IJ Reilly]

Like how cross burning is illegal in a victim's front yard, but burning it in a private audience is not.

Essentially, yes -- unless the private cross burning was an incitement to violence, which in the past they certainly were.

[Stelliform]

....

[mda01aqt]

mate i feel embarressed for u. your defending a ****** nazi

[skunk]

mate i feel embarressed for u. your defending a ****** nazi
Who?? What?? When?? :confused:

[Neserk]

mate i feel embarressed for u. your defending a ****** nazi

Don't know who you are talking to but no one was defending hate speech.

[numediaman]

Another reason Slyhunter will never be a Mac user:

Apple has signed an agreement with the French education ministry. This agreement will include Apple among the big PC-makers who contribute to the high-tech development of the French education. More information is provided in French here (http://www.apple.com/fr/education/accord_ministere/) .

According to some reliable Apple sales sources, Apple's xServe and PowerMac have made a great effect in French, United Kingdom and Swiss businesses, education and research laboratories.

Sources indicated that Apple sees the first positive results of the strong business and institution targeted marketing it started in February in Europe, a few weeks after the announcement of the first G5 based xServe.

Apparently the xServe had very positive feedback from potential business, education and research customers in Europe. In France some government administrations and some research laboratories are considering using xServe technology and Macintosh computers. In Belgium, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and again France, some education contracts have been signed or are about to be signed, involving xServe clusters and PowerMac G5 sales.

[Voltron]

Another reason Slyhunter will never be a Mac user:

Apple has signed an agreement with the French education ministry. This agreement will include Apple among the big PC-makers who contribute to the high-tech development of the French education. More information is provided in French here (http://www.apple.com/fr/education/accord_ministere/) .

According to some reliable Apple sales sources, Apple's xServe and PowerMac have made a great effect in French, United Kingdom and Swiss businesses, education and research laboratories.

Sources indicated that Apple sees the first positive results of the strong business and institution targeted marketing it started in February in Europe, a few weeks after the announcement of the first G5 based xServe.

Apparently the xServe had very positive feedback from potential business, education and research customers in Europe. In France some government administrations and some research laboratories are considering using xServe technology and Macintosh computers. In Belgium, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and again France, some education contracts have been signed or are about to be signed, involving xServe clusters and PowerMac G5 sales.

I walk into a store and look for software I want to slap on my computer. I find what I'm looking for flip the box around and look on the back. It says IBM on it. Its that simple. Yes I admite Mac has better graphics and if your into that artsy fartsy stuff Mac would be the best. But IBM is the best for what I do. I see the competition as nothing more than VHS and Beta, where both are equally good but VHS simply had better marketing and easier to purchase complimentary stuff like VCR's.

BTW I love french fries, in fact some of my best friends eat french fries. I party with French, Japanese, German etc on a MMORPG and we all leave our politics at home.

[miloblithe]

Beta was higher resolution than VHS.

[professor]

[...] Yes I admite Mac has better graphics and if your into that artsy fartsy stuff Mac would be the best. But IBM is the best for what I do. I see the competition as nothing more than VHS and Beta, where both are equally good but VHS simply had better marketing and easier to purchase complimentary stuff like VCR's.
[...]

As we say in Germany: "One million flies just can't err". How about the UNIX-based Mac OSX? I bet you'd drool to have that.

But what have french fries got to do with the title subject? You judge the city of Hamburg based on your experience at the local Mac Donald's?

[takao]

But what have french fries got to do with the title subject? You judge the city of Hamburg based on your experience at the local Mac Donald's?

haha lol that saved my day :)

[Voltron]

As we say in Germany: "One million flies just can't err". How about the UNIX-based Mac OSX? I bet you'd drool to have that.

But what have french fries got to do with the title subject? You judge the city of Hamburg based on your experience at the local Mac Donald's?
I was replying to what was said not necessarily limiting my post to the topic. The person I was replying to didn't limite themselves to the topic why would you expect me to ignore what he said or implied and not respond to it?

Another reason Slyhunter will never be a Mac user:

[INDENT]Apple has signed an agreement with the French education ministry. This agreement will include Apple among the big PC-makers who contribute to the high-tech development of the French education. More information is provided in French

Numediaman is refering to a joke I made earlier in another post about how I wouldn't invest in Apple because they put Gore on its board. Ok it wasn't completly a joke. Thus he expanded it here to imply that I wouldn't have anything to do with anything or anyone that included the French.

Thus my french fry comment. BTW I love french fries, in fact some of my best friends eat french fries. I party with French, Japanese, German etc on a MMORPG and we all leave our politics at home.

[professor]

I was replying to what was said not necessarily limiting my post to the topic. The person I was replying to didn't limite themselves to the topic why would you expect me to ignore what he said or implied and not respond to it?


Numediaman is refering to a joke I made earlier in another post about how I wouldn't invest in Apple because they put Gore on its board. Ok it wasn't completly a joke. Thus he expanded it here to imply that I wouldn't have anything to do with anything or anyone that included the French.

Thus my french fry comment.

We all love you, Voltron. Everything will be fine. :p