Word: speakes
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Without warning and without fear, you and Richard Brautigan come sliding along in a cute old plane without wings or buttons or anything. You stare down and cannot speak. He smiles and you can't remember how you got here and don't care. You move along, laughing to yourself every so often, even WOWing at some Good Ones. It's all very simple. "The Fullness of Living." "Oatmeal sticks to your ribs." Then there's a scene with a guy who can't quite Make It with a girl and it looks like a nice place...
Dean Glimp did not say any of these things. Throughout the students' debate on whether to stay or leave the dean did not once speak to them. His sole statement was that closed Faculty meetings were traditional. It was a rule. Why did Dean Glimp say no more than this? Possibly because he, and the other members of the administration, felt that they hab been offered an ultimatum by the students. One imagines that the administration saw the very physical presence of the students in Paine Hall as un ultimatum directed at them. For the "power" of students...
...that only at demonstrations do groups of students speak with members of the administration? Why is it that only after confrontations are open meetings on large issues ever held? It need not be this way. Paine Hall began in resentment and anger. It could so easily end in tragedy. But it could also mark the beginning of a time when people will talk to each other more openly, more honestly, not as tokens in an ideological struggle, but as human beings equal to themselves in worth. It could mark the beginnings of a free and humanistic politics...
...Forming a new concept of the nature of personal commitment to the party--in other words, the right to speak on issues, and the right to with hold endorsement or funds--when that would be greater in achieving goats. This is a direct reaction to the "heavy-handed" Johnson and Humphrey supporters who have continuously claimed that being a Democrat involves a ban on attacks on the Administration or the war in Vietnam...
...confusion here between the tolerance of all speech, and the tolerance of all actions. I would argue that all promulgation of ideas by speech or press whether odious to us or not, should be tolerated without distinction; that we, as citizens, should defend someone's right to speak stupidly (even while we expose that studidity), that whatever "harm" may come from bad ideas it is not irreparable. But as for actions, their result may be irreparable, and so we choose--to support beneficial acts, to oppose harmful ones...