🚀 go-pugleaf

"Way Back Jack" <humpin@home.net> wrote in message 
news:43126196.52480859@news.prodigy.net...
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:05:53 GMT, "No Spam" <nospam@hormel.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Way Back Jack" <humpin@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:43125dfe.51561078@news.prodigy.net...
>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:36:09 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> live with Nazis, Communists, et. al.  But those miscreants are all
>>>>> direct
>>>>> beneficiaries of the ACLU.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>and aclu would defend you for it, protection is for everybody, look what
>>>>happened to the whackos in waco, society didn't approve of them and the
>>>>government wiped them out because of it. just being a nut shouldn't get
>>>>you
>>>>arrested and killed unfairly.
>>>
>>> ACLU protection's not for everybody.
>>>
>>> They refused to represent a former law-enforcement officer who
>>> requested and was denied a patent for "White Pride Country Wide."
>>>
>>> The fact that the Patent Office granted patents for: "Black Pride,"
>>> "Black Power," "La Raza," and even "Burn, Baby, Burn," did not phase
>>> ACLU.
>>
>>Since you obviously know nothing about trademarks,
>>not even enough to distinguish them from patents,
>>your cridibility on this subject is close to zero.
>
> Yes, it was a trademark application.
>
> But you miss the point.

No, you miss the point, and you lack the facts.

> Why the double-standard?

Did the ACLU have anything to do with the cases in which
trademarks were granted? And what the fuck is "did not
phase ACLU" supposed to mean. Even if you meant "faze"
it still makes no sense. Do you have ANY facts in this
matter, or are you just babbling in the dark? Do you have
even two brain cells to rub tgether to create a spark?