Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Warp escreveu:
> >>   By not being as free as it advertises to be.
> >
> > I see it like as in:  "so free that won't let otherwise"
>
>  There was once a country that had unlimited freedom of speech. They
> banned anyone from ever uttering any notions that suggested that some
> speech should be limited.
>
>  Speech was "so free that they wouldn't let otherwise"
>
>  There was another country where you could use your earnings to buy
> anything you could afford. You were free to do whatever you wanted with
> your money, as long as you didn't give give that money to anyone from
> another country, nor spend the money outside your country. If someone
> from outside gave you money, you were allowed to keep it.
>
>  You could do whatever you wanted with the money, as long as you didn't
> do whatever you weren't allowed to. It was so free.
>
>  A cell phone company provided the ultimate freedom: You could use their
> service to call whoever you wanted at *no* cost whatsoever, as long you
> only called other Sprint lines. You could, of course, receive calls from
> Sprint phones, but those who called you would then be forced to the
> Sprint plan. Additionally, once you got a Sprint phone, the law forbade
> you from ever switching to any other company.
>
>  It was truly free.

Nice anecdote. :)

So, any freedoms come with restrictions of one kind or another to it, huh? ;)

I still prefer country 2. ;)

Post a reply to this message