Most, if not all, of us here are familiar with the so called "Poop-Boy" episode. A bad thing to witness I agree, but I am curious...

Why is it that the discussion of such a thing is free speach, yet posting a picture of same leads to instant calls for deletion? Someone can post a thread about scatological feasting and we would be repulsed, repulsed but I doubt that calls for deletion would result, yet the picture of such a thing is open fodder for crys of censorship. We can discuss subjects such as war and death but yet a picture of a soldier with his guts leaking across the road effects us to the point that we don't want to even see it! Why is it that we can discuss such things, but the seeing of them offends us to the point of censorship?

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone at all?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 02, 2001

Answers

Uncle Deedah

You first have to ask yourself What is censorship?

Then ask yourself Did I censor this forum, as defined by Meriam- Webster?

Then ask yourself Did I censor this forum out of pressure from my peers?

Then ask yourself Did I censor this forum at all?

Then ask yourself Does it really, really matter if "poop-boy" picture goes away?

IMHO, this isn't a matter of censorship. It's a matter of taste. Hell, there are all kinds of websites that cater to "poop boy" picture loving morons. Therefore, you aren't censoring anybody. You just don't provide "poop boys" to those people looking for them.

You having to serve-up "poop-boys" makes about as much sense as Radio Shack having to sell me watermelons just because I like to shop there. I know what to expect when I go to Radio Shack. I don't go there for watermelons and they do not have to sell them.

The point is, when I want to look at naked ladies (not that I do, just trying to make a point here...don't get me wrong, I like looking at naked ladies, never mind), I won't go to Unk's Wild Wild West. When I want mental sparring I won't go to www.nakedladies.com.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a majority of us, and I mean 99.9% of us (IMHO), could probably do without ever having to see "poop boy" or his equalivalent. And 99.9% of us (IMHO) could care less if you delete the pic or post a link to the pic. I personally liken this to yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater. You just can't do that. That's not a violation of our right to free speech or expression. It's just plain old common sense.

Don't worry about what we think. What do you feel is right? Do that and you can sleep well at night my friend.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 02, 2001.

That's easy Unk, look at the names of those crying for deletion...

Maria, Peg, Uncle Bob, Y2J, Deano, Rich, Buddy, Nemesis, Lars

All narrow-minded rightwingers. If the picture had said that Clinton was the poop-boy they would have jumped for joy. Because someone got Uncle Bob's goat better than he got Hillary's, they couldn't stand it. Hypocrisy rules. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

-- (rightwing@crybaby.hypocrits), February 02, 2001.

Uncle Deedah,

My opinion is that part of the answer is that it takes quite a while to read a post when you compare it to the time it takes for the brain to register what the eyes see. In other words, if I am reading a post and start to find out that it is filth, I can stop before my brain has consumed the entire dose; not so with a photograph.

Another part of the answer could be that when reading words about something sickening, one does not usually experience the same degree of stomach turning revulsion that seeing a photographic image does. I truly hope that noone was eating when he or she clicked on that thread.

When you combine the two points into one big picture, I think you have a pretty reasonable answer. No chance to protect oneself from the nasty surprise, coupled with the primal, vomit-inducing response, is beyond what most all of us here consider fair play.

I wouldn't go so far as Uncle Bob did, and liken it to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but I do think that it is a matter of taste. Few, if any, of us would allow it in our home. We have a sort of cyber-home here, and we, on the whole, didn't want it stinking up our living quarters. In our real home, we would have thrown it in the garbage ourselves; but here, we must rely on you to do the dirty work.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 02, 2001.

IMO, you answer your own question Unk. Speech is a different type of communication than visual or aural or olfactory. I can verbally comunicate the subject of excrement without flaunting it or sticking it under your nose. (assuming you already know what it is).

Likewise blood and guts, child-abuse, etc need not be visually shown unless the visual information is essential to the point being made.

Call me old fashioned but I take the words "freedom of speech" quite literally to mean vocal or written information unless the visual is essential (ie, you could hardly communicate the horror of Nazi concentration camps in words alone). But showing pictures of the stacked and rotting corpses just for shock value or for "art" is not "free speech". It is simply gratuitous and dishonest, again IMO.

I suppose I am beating a dead horse. No doubt the SC has ruled long ago that the First Amendment means "freedom of expression" and so mooning Hillary at high noon is my constutional right. Time to go, got a plane to DC to catch.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 02, 2001.

Uncle Deedah,

Of course, I could be wrong. The mental giant who posted between Uncle Bob and I seems to have it all figured out.

I can't recall exactly, but I think that I was still in elementary school the last time that I used the phrase, "They can dish it out, but they can't take it".

I wonder if that is a clue as to where our little poster is currently studying?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 02, 2001.

Ass,ult OR batter. {Y}

Hit!

Cook pancakes or wimp?

How DARE that{{{{{ person }}}}}}allow themself to be so disturbed as to be pictured.

Why are you people mad?

-- antkicker (...@...com), February 02, 2001.

Bueller? Bueller?

Well, Unk, I can answer the "why is that we can discuss.....but...seeing...them offends us.....".

I glimpsed that picture -- and came within a nanosecond of losing my lunch. Even now, and the pic is still burned in my brain, if I think about it, I'll be running to worship the god of American Standard.

"Visuals" in this case are infinitely more powerful than a simple discussion.

And to "rightwing": Near as I can tell from a couple of postings, "Peg" isn't "rightwing". It isn't a "right/left" thing; it's a "common sense" thing, as Uncle Bob said. If YOU want to look at that trash, I'm pretty sure it's fairly easy to find on the Internet. But to subject everyone who clicks on that thread to that trash is just selfish.

Yes, it probably is "censorship" according to M-W. But removing the picture and replacing it with a link is no different than putting all the "adult films" in a separate room at a video store. It's still available (no censorship), but you have to do a little extra to get to it.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 02, 2001.

(rightwing@crybaby.hypocrits),

whatever...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 02, 2001.

Cool. I've been labeled as a narrow-minded rightwinger. Figures it was an anon. Try fiscal conservative with Libertarian leanings. It's a better fit. Trust me.

I haven't seen the picture in question, but as I stated on Maria's thread, there's no need. If I had seen it I'm sure I would manage to recover from any horrors of mind I might have suffered. Perhaps Unk would perform a public service for those who feel themselves incapable of coping by posting a toll-free hotline phone number to an organization that assists in recovery from such harrowing experiences as quickly viewing a picture that's objectionable to them.

If I wanted filtering I'd join TB2k EZ-style or similar. I don't gather the neighborhood children around me when I cruise this site. I keep my dogs from looking over my shoulder in order to protect them from witnessing gross photos. The odds are slim they might see one posted here, but it isn't worth risking their psyches. Wouldn't want them to have doggy nightmares. Although they are unable to read, Bingo Jr. watches movies with me with rapt attention. Somehow she's escaped serious psychological damage.

I take this tack because I find the shouting for deletion comical. I don't wish to belittle those in that group, but I find some people espouse principles and abandon them at the first test. Why? Perhaps because it is so easy to idealize, to formulate principles of living and preach to others and beat chests with pride, yet so difficult to follow through with actions in line with said principles. I know because I've failed at this more times than I care to count. It ain't easy.

Bottom line is this is Unk's forum. He should run it as HIS principles dictate. I won't scream bloody murder if he adopts a deletion policy. I might speak up, however.

It speaks to your warmth of heart, Unk, that you have requested we offer our opinions on this issue. You're a decent fellow. Tell the Mrs. I said so. :)

TGIF

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 02, 2001.

Unk,

I didn't even think of replacing the pic with a link. That's probably the best thing to do in a situation like this.

Even though I try to be careful, sometimes there are others in the room when I'm visiting this board. I certainly don't want to be surprised with something like this when there are others around.

I do have to say that Rich has much more discipline than I do. If I hadn't seen it on my own, I certainly would have visited to see what all the comotion was about. If there was only a link I would certainly click on it. The difference is I would have MADE SURE no one else was around.

If pictures like this are allowed to remain I would always have to make sure no one else was around when visiting here and that would mean I could hardly ever visit.

Thanks for changing it to a link.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), February 02, 2001.

squawkboy

I see your reading comprehension hasn't gotten any better over the years. I never once asked for deletion. Although that was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my life, I never asked that it be deleted. It certainly doesn't break my heart that it was either. I reckon there's a place for shit like that on the web, but this forum ain't it.

Do us a favor squawk - GROW UP. You claim to be a man, how about acting like one for a change. If you equate deleting that picture to "censorship", you're a lot more fucked up than I thought you were.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 02, 2001.

Why is it that we can discuss such things, but the seeing of them offends us to the point of censorship?

It's simple Unk..seeing is believing. Years ago I read a book called "The Yellow Star". It was about the Nazi death camps. Inserted into the book were pictures of numerous atrocities. Those pictures left the reader with no doubt of the authenticity of the story.

And you didn't censor that picture of Poop-Boy, you just made the thread more viewer friendly :)

"rightwinger"...you couldn't be more wrong about me. You only came to that conclusion because I made a comment about Clinton's office digs costing so much. FYI, I'm a registered Democrat...have a nice day!

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), February 02, 2001.

I just got here, is the pic still available? :-)

I missed the comotion .... oh darn.

But, Unc...you are the BEST forum moderator a gal/guy could hope to get. IMHO.

I think you are doing an awesome job.

Keep it up ol boy, just might stop & see ya in Florida...

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 02, 2001.

"Narrow minded right winger" ?

Me?

ROFLMAO!

My first impression when I saw that picture was that it was posted by a sick-minded right winger. So much for stereotypes.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 02, 2001.

It's seems that most have echoed what I think. I have never before asked that anything be deleted. I've seen a lot of things in my life. I know about this type of behavior. A guy I used to date in my youth knew a man in his apartment complex who would pay people to shit on his face. But I don't have to see a picture of it to know I wouldn't like it.

As I stated on the other thread, if I want to see trash, I know where to go. If I want to avoid trash, I know where to go. The choice is mine. I can tolerate a lot of trash, but I think this crossed the line. (Sorry I didn't just e-mail you, I will next time.) Your linking the picture was all I really needed. If I clicked on the link, it would be at my own risk.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 02, 2001.

sumer, look for the thread titled Hillary's new look...be sure that noone is around you when you click that link, and have a barf bucket ready.

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), February 02, 2001.

Who here watches movies ALREADY knowing both the specifics of potentially offensive visuals (need I state this term is completely subjective) and when they will be revealed on the screen? Movie ratings do little to inform us. Reading reviews certainly helps. But I have yet to read a reviewer who stated, "Forty-seven minutes, thirty three seconds into this movie a very disturbing visual is shown. Beware."

We pays our money, we takes our chances. Do any of you complain that not only were you offended by this or that visual in a given movie, but that the movie should go back for editing?

The internet is a storehouse for creative endeavors. Forums provide us with opportunities to stretch out, to create, to communicate, to learn, to be amused, repelled, repulsed. Just as one has to be prepared to witness potentially offensive material on the big screen, so should they be with the computer monitor IF they choose to peruse on the internet.

Just because the powers to edit & delete are more accessible on internet forums does not mean they must be exercised. By all means Unk should do as he sees fit. I am comfortable with his judgement and restraint in matters of forum moderation.

TGIF

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 02, 2001.

Naw Unk,it's not censorship,just a little janitorial engineering.I finally caught up to the pic in question and though I had heard of such,well seeing is believing.

It did raise a question or two:

Wonder what the buffett is like at their conventions?

Do they have conventions?

Soup of the day?

Wine recommendations? Don't ask moi,I don't know shit!!!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), February 02, 2001.

Unc,

Just as you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, there are some things that should not be expressed on public airwaves.

This is at the core of my "Howard Stern" argument with you. Of course, its a fine line, but use your common sense.

-- (@ .), February 02, 2001.

Rich, I don't think I understand what the problem is here. It wasn't censored; there's still a link for all the morbidly curious.

I don't think likening it to viewing a movie is a good comparison. You **expect** to see certain things in movies based on the rating system and the subject matter. (Do you go to a movie not knowing what the basic subject matter is? I don't know anyone who does that, except "film-o-philes".) I'm pretty sure no one **expected** to see poop-boy on a thread whose purported subject matter was Hillary Clinton.

I didn't ask for it to be deleted; as Debra said, replaced by a link is fine. The pic could have stayed; fine, I won't click on the thread again.

But to see that the thread had a "new answer" and then to click and see it, like I said, I was within a nanosecond of losing my lunch. And every time I think about it, it's the same thing because, thanks to some inconsiderate pseudo-adult exercising his/her right to "free speech" without once considering anyone but their sorry little self, it's burned into my brain.

But hey, everyone has the right to be inconsiderate under the guise of "free speech", right? We all have the right to be assholes, too; same justification. So be it. It doesn't mean we HAVE to be to prove some point or other. And if some of us act like assholes and are inconsiderate, well the rest of us have the right, also under the guise of "free speech", to decry the actions and ask for a remedy.

It goes to consideration of others; common courtesy.

Which is anything BUT "common"; kind of like "common" sense.

Anyway, sorry I rambled. That's JMHO.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 02, 2001.

IMHO, you did not censor as you did provide a hotlink to the picture in question.

Personally, pictures of war and death do not disturb me, as it is a sad yet realistic fact of our human race. However, I do not consider a picture of someone defecating into another's mouth as normal activity of the human race under any circumstances.

You must also consider the legal ramifacations for having such material posted on a forum such as this. People come to this forum to share ideas and cuss and discuss with others they have grown to know over time. Depending upon those present when such a "surprise" is displayed on an unsuspecting person, real legalities may be involved. If someone were to have opened that thread in an office environment, that person could have been fired based upon a companies internet policies. If someone else had seen the picture, a sexual harrassment suit could have been filed against both the forum participant and the company which the person works for. If the thread had been opened around children, a person could have their children taken away.

There are also the legalities as to pornography being posted on Phil's machines, or being housed at MIT. While I know that some wish this forum would go quietly into the night, we wish to remain cussing and discussing the ideas which we have. To the ones which wish to have this forum shut down, why not just leave and forget about us? The cyber world is large enough that you could get lost and never bump into us again.

Respectfully Submitted, Betty

ps - Rich you should look at the picture, as you just might change your mind.

-- (bettypaige01@hotmail.com), February 02, 2001.

bettypaige01

No one should have to look at that pic. Like Patricia, I almost hurled. You did make some very good legal arguments. I never thought of that. I'm not a lawyer (I just play one on TV) but I think I could argue it both ways.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), February 02, 2001.

Uncle Bob,

I agree. No one should have to look at that picture.

Betty

-- (bettypaige01@hotmail.com), February 02, 2001.

Unk asked for us to offer our opinions, Patricia. No outcries for censorship nor deletion coming from me. No "delete that pic and I'll never visit here again!" I simply made a case against censorship of posted pictures here at Unk's Wild Wild West. If my tone offended you I am sorry, Patricia. My spine stiffens when truly important matters of principle arise. Occasionally the stiffening extends all the way up to my brain.

Replacing the 'offensive' picture with a link is ok with me.

How many incidents like this has there been in the last 6, 8, 10 months? Two? Three? As Unk said (paraphrasing), serial shockers will be dealt with. I see no trail of filth here. I see the outcry for deletion as an overreaction to a single, isolated incident. Maybe my compassion storage tank is running dry. Call me a 'stiff-necked fool' if you wish. I know it applies. :)

I have NEVER posted a picture on a Lusenet forum and really don't see a need for them at all. Peg does a nice job. Ain't's are childish and 'offensive' – and MEANT to be just that. Aren't they Ain't? Perhaps all pictures should be replaced by links to them as they are posted. Certainly would make surfing easier for those of us with slow ISP connections. And this policy would remove the incentive for such knuckleheads to post 'offensive' doctored photos of public figures. Or is censorship here a matter of voting, as was done on old TB2k. (That's a low blow, I know, but quite apropos.)

Do you go to a movie not knowing what the basic subject matter is?

I have done just that. The Blair Witch Project. I did it on a hunch and it paid off handsomely.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 02, 2001.

Betty,

I haven't seen you post here before now. Welcome!

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 02, 2001.

Thanks for the compliment Rich ;)

Welcome, Betty...it's nice to have another voice of reason :)

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), February 02, 2001.

I wasn't offended by anything you said, Rich; I genuinely didn't understand what you were trying to say. Still not sure I do. I think I'm in "dunce mode" today.

As to the slower connections, that could also come under the heading of "consideration" (which, of course, I completely didn't think of the time I posted a holiday scene on one of the "Capn Fun's Bar" threads).

Bottom line is that I wasn't offended by the trash and I didn't call for its deletion. I made a mental note not to click open the thread again because it literally made me sick (or came dangerously close). There comes a time when consideration, common sense, and (GASP!) decorum must enter the picture. I'm getting kind of tired of self-centered morons who don't give a thought to the consequences of their actions.

(So I'm an idealist; sue me. [g])

Can't believe you didn't know what The Blair Witch Project was all about; do you live in a vacuum?

(JOKE -- it's a JOKE. It's one of the most over-hyped movies of all time; about the only two that beat it for pure hype are the latest Star Wars installment and Titanic.)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 02, 2001.

Pat

I hear it took all of like $75 to make The Blair Witch Project and then it went and made MILLIONS at the theatre. I also hear the sequel didn't fair as well

I still haven't seen either one of'em.....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 02, 2001.

Deano: Trust ME, ya didnt miss a damn thing.

Rich: Finally someone who I relate to re: Aint.

Pat: I luved the pic on the bar thread.

I did click on the poopy thread linky thing. All i can say is ewww.

But, we all pretty well luved unc because this was always to be an uncensored forum and he has (in spite of the tax folks and few to mention porn pics) has done a damn good job of doing exactly as he said he would.....Keep it Uncensored.

Unc is IMHO a man of his word....To that I would raise a bud light but I'm at work so icewater will have to do.

I think the link was a nice touch. It was a very amicable compromise.

Unc.....Thank you again for being a man of his word.

Betty: Welcome there girl, to the Wild Wild West!!!! yeee haa.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 02, 2001.

do you live in a vacuum?

That's an interesting question coming from someone who lives where you do! :)

When I had TV, I avoided commercials like plague. The beauty of a remote control. I had never even heard of the movie. I found myself at a multiplex one Saturday and purchased a ticket for that movie COMPLETELY ignorant of the background other than what the title revealed. I was drawn to it and enjoyed it immensely.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 02, 2001.

If the thread had been opened around children, a person could have their children taken away.

Betty- I find this extremely difficult to believe. There are 11,000+ non-"poop boy" messages posted to this forum. Can you describe to me a reasonable scenerio in which somebody would actually lose their children simply because they innocently opened one particular thread?

I would pose the same question regarding your potential "sexual harassment" charge also. Granted, if someone were to willfully invite others to view the picture I could understand the potential. However, short of that, I cannot believe there could be a legitmate cause to bring suit based solely on the fact that "someone else had seen" the completely unexpected picture.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 02, 2001.

My $.02 cents...

When I surf the internet, unless I'm at a specifically labeled "family site," I don't worry about what I might or might not run into because I automatically assume there will some gross pictures and ugly words. That's the nature of the system. And on days when I have had enough of ugly things, I restrict my viewing to G- rated sites, and I would complain to the management if porn or discrimination turned up there.

I didn't click on that thread after I read about the picture. Indeed, when I do come across something that offends me, I hit the back button. I don't need others to do my censoring for me, thank you.

That said, this is Unk's forum, and if he sees fit to place a link on a question picture (or to delete it), that's his call. I certainly appreciate being able to choose whether to click on the link or not. It's nice that something ugly wasn't thrust onto my screen, but it's still my responsibility whether or not to look, not to scream for censorship on an uncensored site.

-- kb (kb8um8@yahho.com), February 02, 2001.

T-O-T....

Rich, I cant believe you liked that movie. (to each their own)

Tell me tho so I'll understand, what DID you like about it?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 02, 2001.

"A psychoanalyst, knowing that gold and excrement are akin in the subconscious, would not have been surprised....that I used my shit---like the hen's golden eggs, the droppings of the Golden Ass or Danac's divine diarrhea---to perform a phenomenal transmutation through the application of my paranoia critical method"

--The Unspeakable Confessions of Salvador Dali, Quartet Books, 1976

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 02, 2001.

Uhh, Salvador, your clocks are melting.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 02, 2001.

1. My habit is to sit in the 1st row. No distractions, no heads with big hats bobbing to and fro in front of me.

2. I had the fellow at the refreshment stand layer the 'topping' on the popcorn.

3. I love stories of the paranormal.

4. I took the movie to be an actual documentary in the beginning. This was something truly different. I gave it a long leash.

5. The anticipation of a threesome added to the mystery. (Kidding)

TGIF

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 02, 2001.

HEY...........I live in the damn desert :-) (And we just experienced five separate explosions; two above ground and three below. Apparently, there's a gravel pit not too far from where I work. Who knew?)

Anyway, I absolutely cannot believe that you didn't know anything about that movie when you bought the ticket. That's weird. I've never seen it because I'm a wimp and can't watch scary movies.

SHUT UP........I really can't. I have stupid nightmares.

(And the older one gets, the worse the nightmares get.)

Stop laughing.

No, REALLY. You can STOP LAUGHING NOW.................

Oh hell.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 02, 2001.

A guy I used to date in my youth knew a man in his apartment complex who would pay people to shit on his face.

The mind boggles...what does a job like that pay?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 02, 2001.

$20/hour and all you can eat.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), February 03, 2001.

Hey Nem,

Does that include tips and insurance???

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), February 03, 2001.

CD, I am sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to you, as work and life got into the way. However, I shall try to address your concerns as to my thoughts.

First, how could children be taken away. Let's do a little pretend here for a moment. Say your spouse has someone over, with or without children of their own. The computer is in the family room, and the children are playing somewhere around. The screen is situated so that anyone looking in your general direction may see what is displayed upon the screen. You click on the thread, and the friend of your spouse sees the offending picture. This person may or may not say anything to you at the moment, but upon leaving the house calls someone at the state's department of family services and explains that they saw you looking at an disgusting picture while children are present. Doesn't matter that the children didn't see the picture or not. The state can (and in some cases does) remove the children from the house while an investigation occurs. This can be costly for you and your spouse, but I would think that you would continue the fight to get your children back. In some states, all it takes is just an anonymous phone call, and children can be taken.

Now on to the work place. See, where I work we have to pass a sexual harassment course and get certified. Maybe it is just that the place I work at is overly PC (and it is), but someone could bring up charges. Some people look for reasons to bring up charges, as they may be wanting their free ride in life. Sad facts, but oh so true. Do you really want to take the risk?

Respectfully,

Betty

-- (bettypaige01@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.

For shit lovers-----enjoy!!

scatology site

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), February 03, 2001.

Very, very telling about what life in the United States will be like over the next few years.

Seeing the very same people who cheer the confirmation of John "Adolph" Ashcroft as Attorney General (Such as Uncle Boob and Dennis J. Olson) complaining and achieving censhorship on this forum says it all. Uncle Deedah you should be ashamed of yourself for caving into these neo-nazis even slightly.

At least your conscience bugged you enough to reverse the deletion into a link.

And these people were worried about the government busting down their door when Klinton was in charge? You haven't seen government oppression until the King of the Village Idiots and his Jack Booted Thugs get rolling on shoving their "morals" down your throat!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 03, 2001.

Betty-

Although I disagree with your conclusions, I do appreciate your response.

Thank you,

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.

Oh poop.

Let me correct my spelling of coMMotion before J catches it.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), February 03, 2001.

Hey Jack booted thug,

You can go fuck yourself. I never deleted a damned thing. And if I ever do decide to delete something and it bothers you, you can kiss my hairy ass.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 03, 2001.