[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Radar

Oh, you mean like the way you knew the exchange took 20 minutes?

If you read the post where I stated that, it was a guess. I didn't post it as fact, as you did with all of your unfounded assumptions. I'm a big enough man to admit that my assumption may have been wrong, though Wolf's info does support the possiblity that I am right.

Originally Posted by Radar

Nobody said you had to have a warning sign, but you can't expect someone to know what behavior you do or do not condone on your property without one.

I can expect them to know what behavior I do or do not condone if I TELL them, just as the theater did! Hooray for logic!

Originally Posted by Radar

Handing out voter registration forms is perfectly socially acceptable in virtially all locations without anyone being upset so most wouldn't assume you'd be put off by it.

Virtually is NOT all. It obviously was NOT acceptable there, or they wouldn't have asked her to leave. Reasoning is our friend.

Originally Posted by Radar

If you order a pizza and he delivers it and you don't pay him, he won't leave your property and he'd be more than happy for you to call the police. And if he were to hand out voter registration forms to your guests while waiting for the police, he still hasn't committed trespass.

Just for future reference... changing the metaphor so that it is LESS like the reality does not make it more useful. In fact, it makes it LESS useful. Funny how that works.

There is no parallel to the "don't pay him" qualifier. Now, if the woman had tried handing out the forms before the movie, and had then been allowed neither admittance nor refund, that might apply. But that isn't what happened. Your adjusted metaphor is useless in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Radar

That is libertarianism.

I have no doubt that you believe that.

Originally Posted by Radar

This woman did not violate anyone's rights, especially not property rights and anyone who claims she did is a liar.

Yeah... I could also say that anyone who claims she didn't violate someone's rights is a retard who smells like ricotta cheese. But saying it doesn't make it so, does it? Nor does it strengthen an argument. It just brings back memories of the "liar liar pants on fire" defense from the third grade.

Originally Posted by Radar

And for the example you used, let's say the pizza guy lives next door to you and he wants to stand on the edge of his yard and hand out voter registration forms to your guests who come close enough for him to hand them the form. You have no legal right to stop him.

See above regarding the uselessness of making the working metaphor less like the actual events. If the facts don't support your argument, you're mistaken. You can't adjust the facts to fit your flawed reasoning.