Facebook urged to remove Holocaust-denial groups
I grant that Facebook is a private organization and is free to restrict its website however it sees fit within the boundaries of the law. I further grant these sites have violated the terms of use on Facebook. To me, that pretty much seals the deal.
Facebook created this site and set up these terms. You break ‘em, you’re gone.
This just leaves me feeling a little dirty, like we made a deal with the Devil. I certainly have no love for Holocaust-deniers, but is silencing those we really dislike the answer?
Let us frame it a little differently. Let us say I create my own Poodle Social Network (PSN) and it becomes hugely popular, because, let’s face it, poodles need a place to vent. Anyone who has cruised the Civil Religious Discussion thread knows my feelings on religion. So I start removing any and all posts referring to god or gods on my PSN, because, hey, it is my website and it clearly states in the terms and conditions thou shall not make any posts referring to god or gods.
|
Personally, I support the version of free speech we have in the US, which is that you can say any crazy thing you want, with very few limitations (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, etc.)
That said, I think it's worth pointing out that in some other countries in which Facebook is popular, publicly denying the holocaust is illegal.
A company like Facebook probably finds itself in a sticky situation. As a US-based company, it has no obligation to remove holocaust denying material from its site, but as a company it also wants to cater to its European users.
Very curious situation.
|
Facebook urged to remove Holocaust-denial groups
I grant that Facebook is a private organization and is free to restrict its website however it sees fit within the boundaries of the law. I further grant these sites have violated the terms of use on Facebook. To me, that pretty much seals the deal.
Facebook created this site and set up these terms. You break ‘em, you’re gone.
This just leaves me feeling a little dirty, like we made a deal with the Devil. I certainly have no love for Holocaust-deniers, but is silencing those we really dislike the answer?
Let us frame it a little differently. Let us say I create my own Poodle Social Network (PSN) and it becomes hugely popular, because, let’s face it, poodles need a place to vent. Anyone who has cruised the Civil Religious Discussion thread knows my feelings on religion. So I start removing any and all posts referring to god or gods on my PSN, because, hey, it is my website and it clearly states in the terms and conditions thou shall not make any posts referring to god or gods.
You'd be within your rights, but you wouldn't have achieved any kind of victory. Nutters will be nutters and the best way to stop their lunatic views from spreading is to allow people to see them. It also stops the bullshit conspiracy crap they tend to surround themselves with "Oh, the government/Americans/Jews/Liberals/Poodles don't want you to see the real truth". Take that away and most of them are quickly revealed for the idiots they are.
I don't see why they shouldn't ban the stuff.
It's not a public forum. And it's not like it's the only place that does that sort of thing.
Let's say, for example, that I took leave of my senses, sanity, and intellect, and got it into my head that those Jews really were all well poisoners and that they somehow made the whole holocaust thing up, and that they're horrible creatures unworthy of being called human and crap like that. And let's further say that I'd go to, say, the Off-Topic Discussions section of the Paizo boards and start discussing all of this.
The post would be deleted within minutes, and I'd probably get kicked off the boards for good. And rightly so.
If those idiots need to meet up somewhere, let them get their own site and pay for it. I'm all for freedom of speech (to an extent), but like with any real freedom, there's some responsibility attached. In this case, the responsibility to pull your own weight.
If you want others to pay for all the traffic and fancy software to allow you to socialise, you'll have to accept their rules. Feet under the table and all that.
Director of Sales
|
Nutters will be nutters and the best way to stop their lunatic views from spreading is to allow people to see them. It also stops the b!~@@&%! conspiracy crap they tend to surround themselves with "Oh, the government/Americans/Jews/Liberals/Poodles don't want you to see the real truth". Take that away and most of them are quickly revealed for the idiots they are.
I'm not so sure that this is true, actually.
It seems to me that if you allow one nutter to spew his clap-trap in a public venue, then you will get 90 people who will ignore it, 9 people who will debate it (and thereby cause it to get much bigger and get WAAAY more attention that it deserves), and 1 flawed person (crazy or stupid or somehow similarly amenable) person who will say "Y'know... that makes sense to me..." And now you have a gigantic thread and 2 nutters.
Then those two nutters become four, then eight, then sixteen, and so forth. With each iteration, their ridiculous clap-trap seems more legitimate because "there are so many of us!".
I will not site any sources due to fears of sparking a debate over some ridiculous clap-trap which is not germane to the topic of the thread.
|
|
Nutters will be nutters and the best way to stop their lunatic views from spreading is to allow people to see them. It also stops the b!~@@&%! conspiracy crap they tend to surround themselves with "Oh, the government/Americans/Jews/Liberals/Poodles don't want you to see the real truth". Take that away and most of them are quickly revealed for the idiots they are.I'm not so sure that this is true, actually.
It seems to me that if you allow one nutter to spew his clap-trap in a public venue, then you will get 90 people who will ignore it, 9 people who will debate it (and thereby cause it to get much bigger and get WAAAY more attention that it deserves), and 1 flawed person (crazy or stupid or somehow similarly amenable) person who will say "Y'know... that makes sense to me..." And now you have a gigantic thread and 2 nutters.
Then those two nutters become four, then eight, then sixteen, and so forth. With each iteration, their ridiculous clap-trap seems more legitimate because "there are so many of us!".
I will not site any sources due to fears of sparking a debate over some ridiculous clap-trap which is not germane to the topic of the thread.
But then you know who all the nutters are. And then you can unleash your nutter trap. ;-)
If you want people to buy a book, ban it.
If you want people to go see a movie, organize a boycott.
If you want a bad idea to get publicity, denounce it.
The best thing to do is ignore the noisemakers jumping up and down on the fringe...
It seems to me that if you allow one nutter to spew his clap-trap in a public venue, then you will get 90 people who will ignore it, 9 people who will debate it (and thereby cause it to get much bigger and get WAAAY more attention that it deserves), and 1 flawed person (crazy or stupid or somehow similarly amenable) person who will say "Y'know... that makes sense to me..." And now you have a gigantic thread and 2 nutters.
Did not our forefathers start a revolution by spouting nutter nonsense in papers?
I am not saying Holocaust deniers are even remotely like our forefathers. I guess you could say I have an immediate knee jerk reaction to even the hint of censorship. I can certainly see how they would want to yank the pages to comply with European law. That is just good business sense. Of course, Yahoo sold its soul to China.
If this were someone selling kiddie porn I would want them banned. Does that not make me a hypocrite on some level?
My view on censorship: If you don't let people say what they think, how can you tell who the idiots are? I think FB is doing a public service by allowing holocaust deniers a place to rant without bothering the rest of us, and also allowing any interested party (say a potential employer) to see who has publicly declared themselves a "holocaust denier".
If this were someone selling kiddie porn I would want them banned. Does that not make me a hypocrite on some level?
That's one I've struggled with. You can't get much more distasteful than kiddie porn or Holocaust denial (for the sake of the thread I shall demur from listing other things in my personal such category) but is banning kiddie porn consistent with free speech?
I'm pretty fanatic about free speech, really. The only possible exception I can see is an immediate clear and present danger to the lives and well-being of others. (For individuals anyway. Agents of the state and the state itself are entirely different stories. The agents of the state must necessarily be bound by the restrictions on the state while they are on the clock, or restraints on the state are meaningless.)
Other than that, I generally figure that the speech you find most absolutely disgusting, most totally without excuse, is exactly the speech you should be most eager to have protected. Nobody's ever going to get censored for having a popular message, so it's hardly a pressing free speech concern. Every now and then somebody may try to ban extremely popular speech, but it's unlikely to come up and we can always still be there to fight it on the rare occasions that it arises.
Well, kiddie porn is definitely in the most reprehensible possible category. But it's not only speech, the same as lighting fire to the house of someone you dislike isn't just speech. You could argue that arson can be a class of expression, but that doesn't give you the right to set someone else's house on fire because they have rights too. At the very least they have property rights to the house and if they're in it at the time, they certainly have a right not to be murdered by a firebug.
The other element of kiddie porn is the sexual exploitation of children, of course. I know of no right to do that and can think of no convincing argument in favor of one, so I have no objection at all to passing laws against it.
A sort of corner case is pornographic material involving apparent minors who are not real. I still find it immensely distasteful, but if no actual child is involved then I'm afraid I can't bring myself to support any law criminalizing it. Hell, I'd rather people consumed that than the stuff with real kids. Is Harry/Ron slash kiddie porn? It's a sexual story involving two minors, but neither is real. Harry/Snape? It depicts a relationship that would rightly be illegal if they were real, but since it's not then I can't see outlawing it. It's in the same class as Lolita.
This used to worry me quite a lot, since I realized I'd argued myself into approving of a category of kiddie porn remaining legal. But then I realized that because of my deep disgust for the topic (Two loved ones were in fact sexually abused while minors, so this is not academic for me.) cloud my judgment. Fictional depictions are just that. There are no actual children exploited. I disapprove of most violence in real life, but it so happens I play a game that regularly contains scads of violence. It's also included incidences of rape, mutilation, all kinds of things. I don't mean just products I've bought, but games I've run. I wouldn't want to see someone's head cut off, but I have no problem with fictional depictions because no actual person was harmed. The same principle applies here.
I'm comfortable with that, though not thrilled. If no person is actually harmed or exploited in any way, then I can't see compromising free speech for it. The speech we loathe is the price we pay for the speech we love.
An excellent point. If it is true kiddie porn, a real crime has been commited. The realm of fiction is another matter. Could it be argued that denying the Holocaust is not fiction? I mean, I would classify it as such, but these people are classifying it as fact. Does that do direct damage? Obviously not directly measurable to an individual. Can a lie do damage?
Could it be argued that denying the Holocaust is not fiction? I mean, I would classify it as such, but these people are classifying it as fact. Does that do direct damage? Obviously not directly measurable to an individual. Can a lie do damage?
I'm not saying that Holocaust denial is engaging in fiction. But I can see how that could be gotten from my post. I went from there to Lolita and didn't come back. Lolita and simulated kiddie porn with no real kids involved are certainly forms of fiction.
Holocaust denial is pseudohistory. I think that places it in a class of work that isn't quite fiction, and is thus non-fiction. But not all non-fiction is true. Satire can be non-fiction. Political essays are usually non-fiction, even if they're entirely wrongheaded. The diagnostic trait of fiction, at least formally speaking, is the presence of a plot. A thesis is not necessarily a plot. If that were the case, then Origin of Species would belong in the fiction section and only things like the World Almanac and dictionaries would be non-fiction.
I think that lies can be damaging, but are not necessarily so in the sense that the state ought to become involved. While it's tempting to want the state to intervene in order to prevent the spread of lies alone, that puts the state in the position of being the ultimate arbiter of truth. Sounds great if the people in power agree with you in every way, but pretty awful if they do not since now they can outlaw your complaining about them, refuting their positions, etc. So I don't think simple lying is enough cause to outlaw someone.
Generally I think in these cases the onus should be on the person who wishes to do the censoring to establish that there's an extremely good reason, which I find it hard to consider anything but physical or monetary harm, for any censoring to be done. This is rather the opposite of every censorship regime I have heard of operating on a national level.
But as I said, I'm a pretty big free speech fanatic. I believe the First Amendment should protect obscenity of every possible kind. I don't think community standards can excuse any kind of censorship at all. In fact, I think expression that community standards finds obscene is the kind of thing we ought to see it as meant to protect. The Supremes don't agree with me.
An excellent point. If it is true kiddie porn, a real crime has been commited. The realm of fiction is another matter. Could it be argued that denying the Holocaust is not fiction? I mean, I would classify it as such, but these people are classifying it as fact. Does that do direct damage? Obviously not directly measurable to an individual. Can a lie do damage?
Well, I do think it amounts to pissing on the victims' graves.
Generally I think in these cases the onus should be on the person who wishes to do the censoring to establish that there's an extremely good reason, which I find it hard to consider anything but physical or monetary harm, for any censoring to be done.
Playing devil's advocate here because I think we are pretty much on the same page. Should network television, which is pretty much accessible to anyone with a television allow nudity and violence as protected under free speech when minors can view it?
How do you feel about warning labels which warn of explicit material?
Well, I do think it amounts to pissing on the victims' graves.
I get your meaning, but I am not sure that is an accurate analogy. To piss on their graves, they would have to accept that the person died of something which would beg the question of what. It also implies intent, which some of this people may just be grossly misinformed.
|
Well, I do think it amounts to pissing on the victims' graves.I get your meaning, but I am not sure that is an accurate analogy. To piss on their graves, they would have to accept that the person died of something which would beg the question of what. It also implies intent, which some of this people may just be grossly misinformed.
Well to play the other side should something like this be allowed under free speech? Link .
|
|
Well to play the other side should something like this be allowed under free speech? Link .Well, I do think it amounts to pissing on the victims' graves.I get your meaning, but I am not sure that is an accurate analogy. To piss on their graves, they would have to accept that the person died of something which would beg the question of what. It also implies intent, which some of this people may just be grossly misinformed.
Yes. If it's not, then the whole point of Free Speech is gone. But that said, no one says they have to be heard, hence the Patriot Guard. And no one says they have to be served by restaurants, or petrol places or anywhere else. Private businesses can, and maybe should, refuse service. Just saying. Under freedom of speech, you have the right to be a complete and utter a@$$$%$~. But other people have the right to treat you like one, too.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well to play the other side should something like this be allowed under free speech? Link .Well, I do think it amounts to pissing on the victims' graves.I get your meaning, but I am not sure that is an accurate analogy. To piss on their graves, they would have to accept that the person died of something which would beg the question of what. It also implies intent, which some of this people may just be grossly misinformed.
Unfortunately, yes. Vile speech is the speach that has to be defended most of all.
That said, you have the right to speak, you don't have the right to my bullhorn.
Facebook has no obligation to host anyone's group. As to the Phelps clan, if the cemetary is private property (owned by a church) they should be able to restrict access. We can keep them on the sidewalk (or in the highway).
Edit: Ninja'd
Double Edit: Of course I'm a citizen of the US, so I am talking first ammendment
|
|
The main deciding factor on limiting free speech should be if the person speaking is inciting physical harm and violence.
So, saying 'The Holocaust is a Lie' isn't inciting violence. It may an utterly moronic thing to say, but the statement by itself doesn't incite violence. Therefore, it should be allowed. It should also be noted that Facebook in this case has removed groups that incite violence.
Playing devil's advocate here because I think we are pretty much on the same page. Should network television, which is pretty much accessible to anyone with a television allow nudity and violence as protected under free speech when minors can view it?
Yes. The only place I think the state has in regulating broadcast is to assign frequencies so networks aren't broadcasting over one another or interfering with other communications. If parents do not want their children to see certain things, it's their job to act as censors. It's not the state's responsibility.
How do you feel about warning labels which warn of explicit material?
I disapprove. I don't think a state-mandated system should withstand constitutional muster (ratings systems are exactly how some countries censor movies) and I think de facto mandatory ratings schemes developed by private entities are no better when it comes to free and open expression, at least as a matter of principle if not law.
History is written by the winners. It's not a ridiculous argument to say that the facts regarding the Germans and their genocide were skewed and revised, modified and altered, as has so often been the case.
History is sometimes written by the losers too. Often it's written by both sides, unless one or the other is totally exterminated. But no serious historian thinks that the present consensus on the Holocaust is infallible. Indeed one of the major disputes is between those who consider the Holocaust as it happened to be more or less the original design and those who think its specific form was more dictated by the exigencies of the war. Considerable debate has gone into the degree to which ordinary Germans were or were not active participants and the degree to which German society at large was predisposed towards genocide.
Holocaust deniers aren't interested in those debates. Their position is that (pick one or more of the following) the Holocaust is a hoax, no populations were intentionally killed but rather they died of starvation or the like, the number killed was something like ten to a hundred thousand instead of millions*. There's not revisionists in the sense that it's respectable, even expected, to be a revisionist in history, essentially the position that you're advocating for. They're simply denialists.
*The six million figure has been frequently debated. It might have been closer to five million Jews, or it could have been a bit more. Non-Jewish victims amount to a similar number when all put together.
The main deciding factor on limiting free speech should be if the person speaking is inciting physical harm and violence.
Sticks and stones my ass. Harm goes beyond the physical. Words can kill.
History is written by the winners. It's not a ridiculous argument to say that the facts regarding the Germans and their genocide were skewed and revised, modified and altered, as has so often been the case.
There probably was a certain amount of revision. But nothing nearly as much as those who say the holocaust was a lie are suggesting.
Trust me, I have no illusions about the motives of people who flat-out deny the Holocaust ever happened. Nor do I think that they're genuinely interested in scholarly debate, or the like. However, I still feel it is absolutely their right to deny whatever they wish, to gather in groups and deny it (in a public forum of course, which Facebook is *not*), and to have a big denial cluste... eh, party.
I am entirely agreed, then.
How?Sticks and stones my ass. Harm goes beyond the physical. Words can kill.The main deciding factor on limiting free speech should be if the person speaking is inciting physical harm and violence.
Ask anyone who has ever been driven to suicide because of verbal and/or psychological abuse... oh wait, you can't.
Or not even as far as suicide, but self-harming, addictions, depression, anxiety etc. - I'd call that pretty damaging too.|
|
Which is, of course, illegal, under the Civil Rights Act for the US, and under the Protection from Harrassment Act for us Brits. Mainly because that can lead to physical harm and emotional harm towards the person.
This is slightly different to generalised speech. For instance, if I said that 'Mr John Smith is an idiotic fool', that'd be harassment, and wrong as it's directed against an individual person. Speaking about generalised groups, however, is different. Saying 'British people are idiots' may be offensive, but as it's not directed towards an individual, no harm can be done. Saying 'British people need to be killed' is incitement to commit physical harm, and is illegal.
Sticks and stones my ass. Harm goes beyond the physical. Words can kill.
Yeah, look at the 4E bard ;)
But seriously, Gentle Giant is right. I know I am not the original source but when my buddy was at Basic for the Army there was one guy who got a "dear john letter" later that day the guy went to the range with his squad and gave his rifle a bl@w j@b. I have had realitives kill themselves because of an argument with a spouse and as GG said depression is not a scam.
Which is, of course, illegal, under the Civil Rights Act for the US, and under the Protection from Harrassment Act for us Brits. Mainly because that can lead to physical harm and emotional harm towards the person.
This is slightly different to generalised speech. For instance, if I said that 'Mr John Smith is an idiotic fool', that'd be harassment, and wrong as it's directed against an individual person. Speaking about generalised groups, however, is different. Saying 'British people are idiots' may be offensive, but as it's not directed towards an individual, no harm can be done. Saying 'British people need to be killed' is incitement to commit physical harm, and is illegal.
[threadjack]
Death to all poodles:)No, no but seriously Help control the pet population have your poodle spayed or neutred.
[/threadjack]
Which is, of course, illegal, under the Civil Rights Act for the US, and under the Protection from Harrassment Act for us Brits. Mainly because that can lead to physical harm and emotional harm towards the person.
This is slightly different to generalised speech. For instance, if I said that 'Mr John Smith is an idiotic fool', that'd be harassment, and wrong as it's directed against an individual person. Speaking about generalised groups, however, is different. Saying 'British people are idiots' may be offensive, but as it's not directed towards an individual, no harm can be done. Saying 'British people need to be killed' is incitement to commit physical harm, and is illegal.
Illegal or not, they are words and can cause great harm. You asked for examples and I gave some. :-)
Also, one of the reasons those laws are in place is because of the harm such words can cause.|
|
There is a movement to categorize all movements, religious, political, community, social or otherwise, as either productive or a dangerous ideology. Basically any ideology that would pit itself irrationally against another group of people. The whole thought is such ideologies actually are detracting and in some cases destroying society and should be stopped.
There is a movement to categorize all movements, religious, political, community, social or otherwise, as either productive or a dangerous ideology. Basically any ideology that would pit itself irrationally against another group of people.
Who gets to decide which movements are which?
Dangerous Ideology - Any organization that would spread intolerance, hate, or violence against Race/ Religion/ Sexuality/ Nationality/ Creed/ or Gender. This was defined by a sociologist in the 50's.
So let's presume that we can get a consensus identification of these groups. (Good luck with that. I can think of groups that spread intolerance and even hatred in the US all across the political spectrum. Plenty of them are even tax exempt.) What should be done to stop them?
I'll acknowledge there's a paradox of tolerance here. If you tolerate the intolerant, then you have ceased to be tolerant because you are now condoning exactly what you say you're opposed to.
Violence is something different. It's pretty easy to figure out if a group is violent and there's no question that the rights of others are being violated. There's no subjectivity involved.
|
|
I think the whole thing started as a sort of Utopian yearning. That if we could identify and somehow rid ourselves of said intolerant beliefs.(Not the people themselves that could very easily lead down dark roads) then a whole lot of societies problems would be solved. I think the farthest anyone who's subscribed to the Dangerous Ideology belief has gone is point out the intolerant groups and make their intolerance publicly known for what it is. But things aren't so black and white, some of these groups do good things bad have one horrible thing part of their core beliefs. So you really can't do much about it.
That said, you have the right to speak, you don't have the right to my bullhorn.
An excellent point in my opinion. That is why I think Facebook can pull the pages. They specified the rules for using their bullhorn and they were broken.
Or not even as far as suicide, but self-harming, addictions, depression, anxiety etc. - I'd call that pretty damaging too.
Down that path could lead to rules that you can not break up with someone. Just sayin’.
Death to all poodles
Whatever it is we poodles have done to the Jacks, I apologize for. Perhaps we could work out a two state solution.
Or not even as far as suicide, but self-harming, addictions, depression, anxiety etc. - I'd call that pretty damaging too.Down that path could lead to rules that you can not break up with someone. Just sayin’.
Oh definitely, I think the thing to keep in mind is to what degree these things happen, though.
Breaking up with someone can certainly cause a lot of emotional pain, but I think in only the most rare instances is it used as a way of emotional/psychological abuse.If someone wants to torture another human being by faking romantic interest and then goes on a emotional rampage by constantly breaking up with that person, then "taking them back" only to break up with them again soon after ad nauseum, then I'd classify that in the same category as spousal abuse, slander, libel, hate speech etc..
You're intentionally causing someone (emotional) harm. That's the key part, that it's done intentionally (pre-meditated).
Whatever it is we poodles have done to the Jacks, I apologize for.
I'm hijacking this. ;)
Or not even as far as suicide, but self-harming, addictions, depression, anxiety etc. - I'd call that pretty damaging too.Down that path could lead to rules that you can not break up with someone. Just sayin’.Oh definitely, I think the thing to keep in mind is to what degree these things happen.
Breaking up with someone can certainly cause a lot of emotional pain, but I think in only the most rare instances is it used as a way of emotional/psychological abuse.
If someone wants to torture another human being by faking romantic interest and then goes on a emotional rampage by constantly breaking up with that person, then "taking them back" only to break up with them again soon after ad nauseum, then I'd classify that in the same category as spousal abuse, slander, libel, hate speech etc..
You're intentionally causing someone (emotional) harm. That's the key part, that it's done intentionally (pre-meditated).
kinda like that psycho b did when she targeted that 13 year old girl on myspace, leading to her committing suicide...
Whatever it is we poodles have done to the Jacks, I apologize for.I'm hijacking this. ;)
Do with it what you wish. I sincerely offer an olive branch to the great Jacks who were once our allies.
Do with it what you wish. I sincerely offer an olive branch to the great Jacks who were once our allies.Whatever it is we poodles have done to the Jacks, I apologize for.I'm hijacking this. ;)
allies? Masters!
Can't be a Jack and resist that opening.
Now if we could just get you poodles to stop piddling on the carpet, tearing up our copies of PlayGolem, and drinking our booze we could get back to you stealing the bikini tops from the occasional female sunbather and pulling a Coppertone puppy for us. Then love would flow forth into the world. Well, maybe...errr, a little...ahh, forget it.
Now if we could just get you poodles to stop piddling on the carpet, tearing up our copies of PlayGolem, and drinking our booze we could get back to you stealing the bikini tops from the occasional female sunbather and pulling a Coppertone puppy for us. Then love would flow forth into the world. Well, maybe...errr, a little...ahh, forget it.
Hey! They've done enough damage to my bikinis already!
Now if we could just get you poodles to stop piddling on the carpet, tearing up our copies of PlayGolem, and drinking our booze we could get back to you stealing the bikini tops from the occasional female sunbather and pulling a Coppertone puppy for us. Then love would flow forth into the world. Well, maybe...errr, a little...ahh, forget it.I was going to respond to this, but it seems that would just lead back to each of us taking sides once again and refusing to budge.
I am sorry.
Hey! They've done enough damage to my bikinis already!
Now if we could just get you poodles to stop piddling on the carpet, tearing up our copies of PlayGolem, and drinking our booze we could get back to you stealing the bikini tops from the occasional female sunbather and pulling a Coppertone puppy for us. Then love would flow forth into the world. Well, maybe...errr, a little...ahh, forget it.
I'm sure CourtFool regrets that he has but one life to sacrifice for his country. ;)
Now if we could just get you poodles to stop piddling on the carpet, tearing up our copies of PlayGolem, and drinking our booze we could get back to you stealing the bikini tops from the occasional female sunbather and pulling a Coppertone puppy for us. Then love would flow forth into the world. Well, maybe...errr, a little...ahh, forget it.I was going to respond to this, but it seems that would just lead back to each of us taking sides once again and refusing to budge.
I am sorry..Come on. Who's a frisky little puppy? Who wants a squeaky? squeezes brand new, never-been-chewed-on squeaky toy in the shape of a beer bottle.