Urgh! John Stossel is at it again. He's got a new show on tonight on ABC, 9pm CDT/10pm EDT, called What's Wrong with Tampering with Nature? Here's the LINK

I don't want to pre-judge this show, but from the link above, it doesn't seem it's going to be balanced. I plan to watch, and will be interested if anyone else has comments afterwards.

-- Joy F [in So. Wisconsin] (CatFlunky@excite.com), June 29, 2001

Answers

No, it won't be balanced because ABC CENSORED some of his material! See the whole story at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=23454

-- Skip Walton (sundaycreek@gnrac.net), June 29, 2001.

Sorry to those who like him but "Who cares about John Stossel?" His programs don't even tell the whole truth. I don't know who does his research, or if he really cares, but his stories are put together so shoddy that they tell old data mixed in with untrue comments and half-truths that I don't even turn it on anymore. Nope. I won't watch his show. I won't listen to his garbage. For those of you who do, beware. Don't believe what he reports, find out for yourself through reliable sources.

-- JoAnn in SD (jonehls@excite.com), June 29, 2001.

I watched a little bit of this, and it was so logically incoherent that I wished I was taping it to show my students how not to make an argument.

-- Sharon in NY (astyk@brandeis.edu), June 30, 2001.

There was a program this week on Wisc public radio and Stoessel was discussed quite a bit. It seems he's an avid libertarian and the comment made earlier is right on. He starts with a fairly reasonable small collection of "facts" and then reduces them to absurdity. Something to be wary of IMO.

-- john (natlivent@pcpros.net), June 30, 2001.

I used to LOVE watching the documentaries on 20/20, I found them to not only be of interest but accurate and informative. But as time went by, think in the past 4 years, John Stossel's reporting has changed. I still like 20/20 but i now consider what is said carefully.

The isssue with the accuracy of his reporting came to light in his great Organic farming report last Feb, Feb 2000. We were at the time a small organic farm struggling in VA. I had no way to watch the report on TV as we lost the major netowrks with our satellite and hubby refused to pay extra, we never did get the waiver forms as promised. So i would check 20/20 news on their website. i came upon the report and was aghast at the lack of good concrete research on organic farming. It was evident he was a proponent of the major agribusiness firm. To make a long story short, John's research wa snot accurate and he was called on it by the organic farmers, he later apologized for his report, but after the damage was done.

-- Bernice (geminigoats@yahoo.com), June 30, 2001.

Tv documentaries are a joke. They are always politically correct, which means unbalanced and censored. They always espouse the humanistic/New Age environmentalist stance. Just one more reason we chucked the TV.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), June 30, 2001.

Uh.......-- daffodyllady, yes the show was unbalanced alright, but it most assuredly was not New Age, humanistic, politically correct, or environmental. I'm afraid your broad brush about 'tv documentaries' didnt describe in any shape or form John Stossel's report. Would that it had.........

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), June 30, 2001.

Thsi man is paid big bucks by corporations.. he first from my observation became their spokesperson around 1994-96 cannot remember exact date..... a show series by the name junk science was his platform.. this was sponsored TASSC.. it stood for the advancement of sound science.. it was headed by the former gov of new mexico.. gary struthers (sp?).. this show was the start of disallowing expert witnesses if they disagreed with the current science.. it was in my opinion, started for the silicone breast implants lawsuits, the implants were flawed from the start.. i do not understand why it was not brought out big time that the shell that holds the gel leaks.. the molicules of the gel is smaller then the shell and they slowly bleed thru the shell.. i was very ill for a very long time and still am not 100%.. but I had appx 11/2 cups of gel bleed.. it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that heavy metals and toxic chemicals that slowly are released into the body will cause health problems... but anyway.. he should be exposed for what he is.. a paid spokesperson for the chemical industry.. Merry Grant.. ps.. the website is now junkscience.com..see how outragous it is..

-- merry grant (merrymrg@aol.com), July 03, 2001.

slander \Slan"der\, n. 1. A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.

Well Ken & Dave,

I suppose this garbage post is allowed to stay because its a bunch of whining liberals carrying on? Where exactly is the connection to homesteading that is the new requirement for a post to stay?

-- William in Wi (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), July 03, 2001.

Well, William, I am the one who started this thread, so I guess I should answer. Did you click on the link I provided and read the article? This is a quote from the article: "Biotechnology, he says, is helping to make food more plentiful. Stossel questions why activists condemn Bovine Growth Hormone, which increases milk production in cows, when the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association say it's perfectly safe."

I figured if it were going to cover things like that, it was relevant to a forum about homesteading. Since you call it a "garbage post", I guess you don't agree. If Ken or Dave don't agree that it's relevant, then I guess they'll delete it. I won't holler and yell about it if they do.

I'm not certain whom you are implying has committed slander, but I can't see how my post could be construed as such. Also, my sources tell me that slander is spoken, libel is written/printed, but I'm always willing to learn something new. Can you direct me to a source that contradicts that belief? I also was of the opinion that the information must be false in order to be slander OR libel.

-- Joy F [in So. Wisconsin] (CatFlunky@excite.com), July 03, 2001.

William, I also would be interested as to what was your point??? Who is slandering here?? Are you saying that you support the whole mega- chemical farming trend??? Please illuminate or is this just another one of your cheap shots at the people you don't like for the heck of it with nothing to back it up?????

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), July 03, 2001.

Joy, you are absolutely correct, libel is printed and slander is spoken. In both cases what is reported must be proven to be false. Perhaps William in Wisconsin didn't know the meaning of the word "utter" in the definition he posted.

As for whether or not what has been said about Stossel and his lack of integrity as a "reporter", this is not the first time he has slanted his reports in favor of a corporate sponsor and I'm sure it won't be the last. The most obvious example of this was when he slandered the Organic Farming community by trying to make it appear that organic foods are a health hazard. Months later he eventually "apologized" but by that time the show had been aired several times. To the best of my knowledge he didn't apologize on the air, either.

Keep in mind his "expert witness" for that show was a guy who had written a book called (I kid you not) "Better Living Through Pesticides and Plastics". I suppose he both slandered AND libeled, due to the availability of written transcripts from the show.

John Stossel is not an investigative reporter. He is nothing more than a talking head.

-- Sojourner (notime4@summer.spam), July 03, 2001.

Well, William, I am the one who started this thread, so I guess I should answer.
No, you shouldn’t. It wasn’t directed to you.

Did you click on the link I provided and read the article?
Yes.

This is a quote from the article: "Biotechnology, he says, is helping to make food more plentiful. Stossel questions why activists condemn Bovine Growth Hormone, which increases milk production in cows, when the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association say it's perfectly safe." I figured if it were going to cover things like that, it was relevant to a forum about homesteading.
No you didn’t. You figured that this was a good opportunity to spread your watermelon propaganda. Long time posters know that you are an eco-fascist. John Stossel is the nearly the sole holdout against liberalism in the press and the fact that his reporting frequently has targeted the kind of organizations and initiative that you support . Please, Miss Green, don’t even pretend that you didn’t get one of the “activist” messages that were being passed around the environmental/green/Nader groups, like the “news release” from the Environmental Working Group or one of the others (from NFC members maybe) that suggested that members protest and generally cause problems for any way possible for Stossel. There is an old saying, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.” Had it dawned on you that I might get the same messages and visit the same sites you do? Its not coincidental that every time any discussion comes up that you default to the prewritten scripts created on the liberal political sites.

The quote you gave is certainly there but that is not what gave impetus to your post. It is not coincidental that your original post appeared on the same day that the big push was on to have John Stossels segment showing the brain washed newly Greened children of our government institutions pulled.

BTW, from the same page, how does it feel to have the likes of Former Greenpeace director Patrick Moore rejecting the efforts of your movement?

Since you call it a "garbage post", I guess you don't agree.
Correct. Will wonders never cease?

If Ken or Dave don't agree that it's relevant, then I guess they'll delete it.
No they wont and that’s the reason Im bitching. You people commonly insinuate your putrescent ideology into your posts and no one ever deletes it but, Holy jumpin Cheese curds! instantly delete anything critical of your positions, government run amok, or mentioning a traditional spirituality. Only off topic posts and articles supporting ideas like those espoused by environazis and the “benefits” Red Chinas population control policy will be allowed.

I won't holler and yell about it if they do.
Of course not, even when children get punished for doing something they knew was wrong they don’t claim it wasn’t fair.

I'm not certain whom you are implying has committed slander,
I didn’t imply, I stated it rather succinctly.

but I can't see how my post could be construed as such.
I didn’t point you out but my mom used to tell me that the guilty often feel it necessary to defend themselves even if you arent speaking directly to them. I guess she was right.

Also, my sources tell me that slander is spoken, libel is written/printed, but I'm always willing to learn something new.
Says a lot about your friends and by extension you…

Can you direct me to a source that contradicts that belief?< I>
If I must….

slan·der (slndr) n. #2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

slander \Slan"der\, n.
#1. A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

. slander n
1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
2: the act of defaming : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" The article in the paper sullied my reputation
WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Sufficient?

also was of the opinion that the information must be false in order to be slander OR libel.
As a number of the replies thus far have been as anyone actually investigating would know, must we travel down that road too? Correct twice in one post, your on a roll, better run out an apply to become a contestant on “Who wants to be a Millionaire”.

-- William in Wi (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), July 03, 2001.

Perhaps William in Wisconsin didn't know the meaning of the word "utter" in the definition he posted.

Or perhaps you dont read very well.

-- William in Wi (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), July 03, 2001.

John Stossel, American Patriot

Source: Toogood Reports

Published: July 3, 2001 Author: Alan Caruba

John Stossel's June 30th program, "Tampering With Nature" was another example of his lonely effort to debunk all the lies perpetrated by the Greens and other groups allied against the way science works to improve human life. It generated some controversy because a group attacked it for interviewing a group of children to reveal how, very early in life, the Green doom and gloom message that the earth is totally polluted by humans, is imprinted on them in the schools of this nation.

Stossel was forced to delete the original interview with the school children because their parents, who had previously been delighted with their participation, were convinced to withdraw their permission by the Environmental Working Group. Stossel simply taped a comparable segment with other children, getting the same results. They were all fearful that the air and water is polluted. It's not.

Commenting on the Environmental Working Group, Stossel called them "the totalitarian left. They want to silence people who criticize them." That's how the Left and, particularly, the Greens work these days because anyone with any common sense knows that people around the world are living longer lives precisely because we've had a Green Revolution to feed them and the new one involving genetically modified foods promises to end the ancient scourge of mankind, famine, without deforesting the world for new farmland.

The program, when aired, received higher ratings than the popular "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire", showing that some Americans are still interested in the truth. That said, the audience "Law and Order", an entertainment program, was nearly two percentage points higher.

Writing in the May issue of Imprimis, Stossel said, "When I started 30 years ago as a consumer reporter, took the approach that most young reporters take today. My attitude was that capitalism is essentially cruel and unfair, and that the job of government, with the help of lawyers and the press, is to protect people from it." This is your standard liberal attitude.

"I and other consumer activists said, 'We've got to have regulation", wrote Stossel, confessing "I'm embarrassed at how long it took me to realize that these regulations make things worse, not better, for ordinary people. The damage done by regulation is so vast, it's often hard to see." He attributed this as "largely due to the prevalence of misleading scare stories in the press," noting that "we see in society an increasing fear of innovation."

"What's happened to America?" asked Stossel. "Why do we allow government to make decisions for us as if we were children? We're living longer than ever. A century ago, most people my age were already dead. If we were better informed, we'd realize that what's behind this longevity is the spirit of enterprise, and that what gives us this spirit — what makes America thrive — isn't regulation. It's freedom."

The answer, in part, is that we have been increasingly losing our freedoms and our privacy as we have permitted our federal government to grow larger and larger with every passing week. Worse, most Americans have grown indifferent to what is happening in Washington, D.C. They no longer pay attention to the debates in Congress over issues that intrude increasingly into every aspect of their lives.

Freedom and liberty must be defended every day. That's the lesson of the Fourth of July. Stossel is a patriot in the purest sense of the word. You can be one too by speaking up whenever you read or hear the lies that would rob you of the rights guaranteed in the oldest living Constitution in the world.

-- William in Wi (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), July 03, 2001.

In Defense of John Stossel

Source: LewRockwell.com
Author: Mr. Dieteman

In Defense of John Stossel
by David Dieteman

As one of the few – if not the only – liberty-minded television journalists on the planet, John Stossel has a target on his back. He is a target for those who seek to control the lives of others. When I first heard of John Stossel and his ground-breaking exposés on government waste, I wondered why no one had yet tried to paint him as a loony.

Why? Because Stossel dares to ask the tough – and simple – questions that no one else in the boot-licking media is willing to ask. Those who dare to question the conventional wisdom of the day have to be ridiculed as insane, otherwise those who want to control the lives of others would actually have to justify their lust for power – which, of course, they cannot do.

(As an aside, if you have not already done so, read Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Like the environmentalists of today, Twain’s Yankee is happiest when meddling in the lives of others).

For example, in one episode on the "benefits" of organic food, Stossel made two contentions. First, there is no evidence that organic food is better for you. Second, organic food may be worse for you, due to the fact that it is fertilized not with nitrogen taken from the air in a chemical factory, but by cow dung, also known as manure. If you don’t wash you high-priced organic foods, Stossel noted, you may be ingesting bacteria from the manure. Sounds sensible, right?

The problem is with the environmentalists, who are now engaged in a full-blown campaign to smear John Stossel. In reply, Stossel has called the environmentalists exactly what they are: totalitarians.

And by the way, don’t expect John Stossel to get a fair hearing from his Left-leaning colleagues in the "unbiased" media. Here is how the Washington Post reports on the controversy, quoting Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group (a DC organization):

"He does make things up. He made up a whole set of pesticide results last year and we caught him." After that program aired, Stossel apologized for citing tests on organic produce that, it turned out, were never conducted.

Memo to Ken Cook: the allegation that Stossel "made things up" is exceedingly flimsy. At most, he made a harmless error. He said "pesticide residue," when he should have said "bacterial residue." The point remains the same: there are residues on the allegedly "better," "safe" and "healthy" high-priced organic food which are – drum roll, please – UNHEALTHY. If you don’t adequately wash your organic produce, you might as well pucker up and kiss a cow’s posterior.

(By the way, Laissez Faire Books carries a large selection of Stossel’s shows on tape. They are magnificent).

Additionally, notice that the eco-nuts have not responded to the substantive charges against them, namely, that eating an "organic" cucumber is not better for you – in any way – than eating a cucumber whose fertilizer was made in a factory, instead of in a cow’s rectum. Amusingly, on the show in question, the spokeswoman for the organic food industry looked decidedly unhappy at Stossel’s questions about whether organic food – which is typically five times the price of traditional food, in my experience – was a waste of money.

Nor are the organic food types usually willing to confront the fact that if all food were grown organically, we would be unable to feed the population of the world, and we would also have to cut down a great many forests to cultivate more land for inefficient farming methods, causing global warming in the process. In this regard, see the tremendous interview in Reason magazine with agronomist Norman Borlaug. By the way, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.

Those on the Left – including environmentalists, who are waging a terror-bombing campaign against those who dare to disagree with them – cannot answer Stossel’s questions, because the only answer to Stossel’s questions about organic food is to say "There are no benefits to eating organic food beyond the normal benefits of eating any food." And so they attempt to smear the reputation of a daring investigative journalist.

By the way, has the Washington Post reported on the eco-bombing of university research labs? And what is the view of Cook’s Environmental Working Group with respect to such terrorism?

Fight on, Stossel.

June 30, 2001

Mr. Dieteman is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2001 David Dieteman

---------------------------------------------------------------

-- William in Wi (gnarledmaw@lycos.com), July 03, 2001.

What William said that was UTTERLY incorrect and therefore cannot defend against except by throwing up strawmen and calling other people mean little names:

"slander \Slan"der\, n. 1. A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another."

Ergo, anything printed on this board is not, in fact, slander. This is the PRINTED word, and IF anyone were printing actual lies, it would be libel and not slander. Slander is spoken; libel is printed.

From the rest of the drivel he has posted it is obvious that he is as confused about the difference between truth and propoganda as he is the difference between slander and libel.

John Stossel as the defender of truth? Yeah, and Charles Manson is the last defender of individual rights, too.

LOL!

BTW, William, here is a link to an online dictionary. You obviously need it. The reiteration of the definition of "slander" that you printed is certainly NOT "sufficient" to excuse your error in the use of the English language. It only reinforces said error.

Merriam Webster Online

Look up the definition of libel. Learn something new, rather than parroting the tired old insults and meaningless rote propoganda you obviously substitute for critical thought. Or do you have a mind like a steel trap - closed? LOL!

BTW, "critical" thought doesn't mean giving in to your knee-jerk reactions to belittle and denigrate the facts when they don't match up with your beliefs. It means actually evaluating information on its own merits, as opposed to believing what some talking head tells you.

Yes, William, anything that involves the growing of food or raising of livestock does, in fact, relate to homesteading. Many people on this board are market growers or direct market their livestock to the public. When Stossel attempted his smear job on organic produce, many market growers fielded hundreds of phone calls from fearful consumers.

Stossel later had to back off from the smear campaign he had engendered against organic produce. He had no facts to back up his stance (that organic produce is BAD for you and may kill you!).

Use that dictionary link. It may be your only hope ...

-- Sojourner (notime4@summer.spam), July 03, 2001.

hey willie.............chemical farmer are we??????? Why hang out here with all us homestead eco-type freaks who don't want to eat hormone and antibiotic laced food and enjoy raising our own. I don't get it.........find a support group and get over it. There are lots of us who enjoy living the way we do and don't particularly care to have the corporate farm distroy our country. We have 3 within an easy drive of us............started out family farms getting bigger and bigger now the three are all owned by the same company and it stinks so bad near them that no one can sell out. Nice deal, now guess who will buy them cheap. Where is the liberty in that mister???? Whose liberty are we talking about here?????????

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), July 03, 2001.

Oh Dear.... here we go again...... Yikks... get out the pitchfork and shovels... its gonna get deep!

-- Bernice (geminigoats@yahoo.com), July 03, 2001.

Joy F. (in S. Wisc.) - Which enviornmental groups contacted you about this show?

-- Sandy in MN (onestonefarm@hotmail.com), July 03, 2001.

is sitting on the floor, attempting to extract her foot from her mouth again. Seriously, I think I should learn to keep my trap shut. My foot seems to have a reflex action everytime the jaw drops.

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), July 03, 2001.

Hey, daffodyllady, don't put any blame on yourself. Odd but true, we who post here are not all of one mind, and these disagreements blow up here fairly often. We have a quiet spell, and then something ticks someone off. My mistake was forgetting that not everyone reading and posting on this forum is against chemicals, hormones, etc. in their food.

I have agreed with John Stossel on various issues in the past. I may agree with him in the future. I don't agree with his stance on the adulteration of food. And yes, he did claim that organic food could kill you. Pesticide residues in or on conventionally-raised foods can kill you too. Ask General Mills -- they had to recall a whole batch of Cheerios a few years back because of high pesticide contamination. A little news story that was mostly ignored or printed on back pages. My mother taught me, way back in the 1950's, before we had so many chemicals used in agriculture, that you WASH your fruits and vegetables BEFORE you eat them. DUH!

Sandy in MN, you asked "which" not "whether", but I was not contacted by any eco-group about Stossel's report. I don't keep as close an eye on ecology as William seems to think. I've been busy -- got an organic garden and a new dog (and no experience with dogs, so that keeps me hopping). My nasty secret is that I was watching, dare I confess it, a SOAP OPERA! Yep, I'm a General Hospital watcher (although, I'm starting to miss episodes of that too, too busy!). If you don't know this, that show is on ABC, the same network that has 20/20 and John Stossel's reports. There was a commercial (is that the right word?) about the report later that night. So I went to the ABC website and looked up what it was going to be about, then posted it here and on BTS. That is the complete and entire truth. Anyone who cares to think I'm lying, that's your choice -- and my indifference. Pretending that you know how I think, why I hold certain opinions, and what my feelings are, doesn't mean that you ACTUALLY do know.

As far as slander/libel go, it appears that in our ever-changing language, they're becoming interchangeable. So, yes, William, those were enough references. I will concede that slander is evolving to include the printed word.

William, I'm not going to pick apart your reply line by line. I will only say this: Get over yourself. You're not omnipotent. You don't know what prompted me to post nor my opinions, despite your claims to the contrary. I haven't seen you sitting in my living room, nor felt you rummaging around in my brain. I have made no secret of my concern for preserving the environment, and I make no apologies for my concern. The environment is what supports the life of humans. Another DUH! Labelling me an eco-facist because we don't share the same opinions doesn't make it true. I don't consider any of my views to be "facist". What does it say about you, that you don't want me to post my opinions, whether they agree with yours or not? Don't take YOUR motives and extrapolate that I have the same ones. And, I posted it on the day that I did, because THAT WAS THE DAY IT WAS COMING ON TV! Third DUH!

-- Joy F [in So. Wisconsin] (CatFlunky@excite.com), July 03, 2001.

Bravo to you, Joy!

That was a very reasoned and polite response to William in Wi. Care to return the courtesy, William? Or are you just interested in kicking the anthill, so-to-speak? :-)

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 03, 2001.

For those interested in the debate over the organic farming segment it was on the 20/20 discussion board. I might add that it was a well "hashed" over topic and feelings were intent as they should be. I wrote some posts to the thread on organic farming there as did several folks engaged in farming and those who were opposed to organics. They still may be in the archives of the 20/20 board for those interested in viewing it. And John's apology is there as well.

Bernice

-- Bernice (geminigoats@yahoo.com), July 03, 2001.

I did not watch the show as I have decided to ban 20/20 from my home. My issue with John Stossel is not "forum related" but it does hit close to home and had to do with the D.A.R.E. program in America, that of which my husband has been involved with for 9 years and I know what lies Stossel's report broadcast. Perhaps it is Stossel who is committing the Slander/Libel????? Oh yeah, I work for an attorney also who has given me great incite to the matter here. Anyway, I don't wish to stay on the bandwagon but I feel compelled to make a comment ... William should not be here on this forum. He refers to us as "You people ..." That's right William, you are clearly not one of us.

-- JoAnn in SD (jonehls@excite.com), July 04, 2001.

Joann, as you work for an attorney, I am sure you know how to use the dictionary. You may wish to do some research on the two words "incite" and insight". Wow, maybe I could land a job with an attorney... I thought you needed a college education for that kind of job. lol

-- daffodyllady (daffodyllady@yahoo.com), July 04, 2001.

Oops Joy, I hope you are human and make mistakes too! Actually, the correct punctuation is "incite" and "insight." The period goes on the inside. However, I don't believe that spelling and punctuation are the topics here.

-- JoAnn in SD (jonehls@excite.com), July 04, 2001.

Sorry, not meant for you Joy. Pardon my mistake, seems I make a lot on this forum! The message was for daffodyllady.

-- JoAnn in SD (jonehls@excite.com), July 04, 2001.

Well.......

This thread started out fine and relevant, but we digress....

When flames start flying by, and posts go off topic it makes one question why it is allowed to continue; after all, wasn't that Hoot's sin?

Funny how the man we call Jesus used food, and good stewardship to illustrate many of his stories.

-- rick K (rick_122@hotmail.com), July 06, 2001.

Brava Joy, brava !!! As the eco-whackos of the world unite, we, the inhabitants of our beleagured planet Earth have a better chance to wake up the uninformed and change our destiny for the better!

From a dedicated tree-hugger, PETA member and Earth First financial contributor, AND, a voting Libertarian, I ask you all, what is inherently wrong with being an ecofascist???

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), July 10, 2001.