# Freedom of speech and expression?



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

When it comes to freedom of speech and expression, are there reasonable limits that should just be observed and, perhaps, even enforced? Driving through Chicago on I-94 this morning, we noticed congregations of demonstrators on two of the overpasses crossing the interstate. From a distance, we watched the drivers ahead of us abruptly breaking, as their cars approached these overpasses. The congregants on the overpasses were holding an anti-abortion rally and were holding up large and garishly colored posters very graphically showing the results of late term abortions.

While I am not a fan of abortions, I think the display we witnessed today was both pointless and potentially very dangerous...we witnessed at least three near collisions, as drivers unexpectedly braked...in response to the shock of the posters. Perhaps I'm too shallow but, abortion opponents should not be allowed to create or contribute to the creation of serious traffic hazards, in their efforts to present their arguments!

What say you?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> When it comes to freedom of speech and expression, are there reasonable limits that should just be observed and, perhaps, even enforced? Driving through Chicago on I-94 this morning, we noticed congregations of demonstrators on two of the overpasses crossing the interstate. From a distance, we watched the drivers ahead of us abruptly breaking, as their cars approached these overpasses. The congregants on the overpasses were holding an anti-abortion rally and were holding up large and garishly colored posters very graphically showing the results of late term abortions.
> 
> While I am not a fan of abortions, I think the display we witnessed today was both pointless and potentially very dangerous...we witnessed at least three near collisions, as drivers unexpectedly braked...in response to the shock of the posters. Perhaps I'm too shallow but, abortion opponents should not be allowed to create or contribute to the creation of serious traffic hazards, in their efforts to present their arguments!
> 
> What say you?


No one should be able to create or contribute to serious traffic hazards. I think speech or abortion has nothing to do with it. It's a safety issue. If they were having a Pro-Same-Sex-Marriage or Anti-War rally I would say the same thing.

Whether garish posters which communicate an obviously inconvenient truth about late term abortion are "in taste" even if they don't create a traffic hazzard is a different issue IMHO. While I am personally anti-late-term-abortion I think people should choose a little more wisely how to try to win converts.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> we witnessed at least three near collisions, as drivers unexpectedly braked...in response to the shock of the posters.


As an ardent supporter of the first amendment, I'd say that people who find they have to slam on the brakes in response to a poster being displayed several hundred yards away, probably shouldn't be in possession of a license.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ...we witnessed at least three near collisions, as drivers unexpectedly braked...in response to the shock of the posters


Or maybe they were texting? Talking on their cell phones? Eating? Smoking? Applying makeup? Rummaging around in a bag? Shaving? Disciplining children?

It's not as though all the drivers were paying complete attention to what they were doing, and along came some mean late-term abortion protesters with graphic posters to upset those attentive Chicago commuters.

But I can see your point: seeing the mutilated bodies of innocent, unborn children is such a distraction!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Most drivers don't allow enough space between themselves and the car ahead of them.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> No one should be able to create or contribute to serious traffic hazards. I think speech or abortion has nothing to do with it. It's a safety issue. If they were having a Pro-Same-Sex-Marriage or Anti-War rally I would say the same thing.
> 
> Whether garish posters which communicate an obviously inconvenient truth about late term abortion are "in taste" even if they don't create a traffic hazzard is a different issue IMHO. While I am personally anti-late-term-abortion I think people should choose a little more wisely how to try to win converts.


I have not said this often with regard to your posts, but here you are spot on and I could not agree more - on all points.

The City has a significant and compelling interest in maintaining the safety of people on streets and sidewalks. That interest sometimes justifies restrictions on speech rights.

I am sure Chicago has laws on the books that prohibit standing in the middle of the street, or to block pedestrians on sidewalks. Those laws are valid, even when enforced against a person who wants to speak in that street or on that sidewalk.

This OP has nothing to do with "who" was on the overpasses protesting...but the fact that their protest was causing a dangerous situation on a busy highway.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

*From the wayback machine...*

Nothing new here. A painting of Dennis Rodman used to backup Chicago traffic:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...vcoPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V44DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2066,654124

Quote: "It doesn't take much to attract their attention; road kill will do it."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't think this is even a close question. The state has a legitimate interest in regulating what is traditionally referred to as time, place, and manner. If the speech creates an unreasonable risk of harm to public safety, the state can legitimately implement content-neutral regulations to prevent the harm to public safety.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

ksinc said:


> No one should be able to create or contribute to serious traffic hazards. I think speech or abortion has nothing to do with it. It's a safety issue. If they were having a Pro-Same-Sex-Marriage or Anti-War rally I would say the same thing.
> 
> Whether garish posters which communicate an obviously inconvenient truth about late term abortion are "in taste" even if they don't create a traffic hazzard is a different issue IMHO. While I am personally anti-late-term-abortion I think people should choose a little more wisely how to try to win converts.


Very well said!!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

jbmcb said:


> As an ardent supporter of the first amendment, I'd say that people who find they have to slam on the brakes in response to a poster being displayed several hundred yards away, probably shouldn't be in possession of a license.


The posters were not so large, that the details could be seem from a distance of several hundred yards. People braked when they were close enough to recognize and be shocked by the details of what they were looking at (perhaps 50 to 100 feet before crossing under the overpass)...and yes, the images were shocking and, as such, constituted a traffic hazard!



Pentheos said:


> Or maybe they were texting? Talking on their cell phones? Eating? Smoking? Applying makeup? Rummaging around in a bag? Shaving? Disciplining children?
> 
> It's not as though all the drivers were paying complete attention to what they were doing, and along came some mean late-term abortion protesters with graphic posters to upset those attentive Chicago commuters.
> 
> But I can see your point: seeing the mutilated bodies of innocent, unborn children is such a distraction!


Any distractions can contribute to the incidence of traffic accidents and consequently, should be kept to a minimum. The addition of each adds to the probability of an accident occurring. If memory serves me well, Chicago does prohibit drivers engaging in cell phone conversations, that are not hands free activity...ya gotta use a speaker phone! Pentheos, I am not saying the group should not be allowed to get their message out...only that a better time and place could have been chosen. A wrong is not bet corrected, through the creation of another wrong.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Relayer said:


> Most drivers don't allow enough space between themselves and the car ahead of them.


I've seen it and it's just plain rude.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> When it comes to freedom of speech and expression, are there reasonable limits that should just be observed and, perhaps, even enforced? Driving through Chicago on I-94 this morning, we noticed congregations of demonstrators on two of the overpasses crossing the interstate. From a distance, we watched the drivers ahead of us abruptly breaking, as their cars approached these overpasses.
> 
> What say you?


That's the same reaction drivers have to the overhead message displays that IDOT has.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*focus on the task at hand, no problems*

I like to ignore the safety of myself and others so that I can brake abruptly and gawk at billboards featuring bikini-clad women. I am blameless, it is the the content of the distraction that is at fault.

So where is the line where drivers can safely be exposed to free speech? Or is a society that lives in their cars to be isolated from any protest signs?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

David V said:


> That's the same reaction drivers have to the overhead message displays that IDOT has.


"IDOT"? Do any of your fellow Illinoisans take delight in point out that there may be an "I" missing?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> "IDOT"? Do any of your fellow Illinoisans take delight in point out that there may be an "I" missing?


An early morning rimshot to Jack McCullough!!!

(I know I'm not a drummer, but there is a program in my synthesizer that will do a rim shot if I hit the right keys.)


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> "IDOT"? Do any of your fellow Illinoisans take delight in point out that there may be an "I" missing?


I don't think "delight" is the feeling.

"Welcome to Illinois. Check your rims."


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

ksinc said:


> No one should be able to create or contribute to serious traffic hazards. I think speech or abortion has nothing to do with it. It's a safety issue. If they were having a Pro-Same-Sex-Marriage or Anti-War rally I would say the same thing.
> 
> Whether garish posters which communicate an obviously inconvenient truth about late term abortion are "in taste" even if they don't create a traffic hazzard is a different issue IMHO. While I am personally anti-late-term-abortion I think people should choose a little more wisely how to try to win converts.


Quite so.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I like to ignore the safety of myself and others so that I can brake abruptly and gawk at billboards featuring bikini-clad women. I am blameless, it is the the content of the distraction that is at fault.
> 
> So where is the line where drivers can safely be exposed to free speech? Or is a society that lives in their cars to be isolated from any protest signs?


I see what you're saying, but then I guess the question has to be asked, where is the line where we declare something a nuissance (sp?)...Now, the message of the protests aside (that's a whole other can of worms), how is that any less of a danger to public safety than the drugged out freak walking naked along the side of the freeway at four in the morning shouting obscenities at traffic...maybe he's just very passionate about what the voices in his head are telling him and he needs to get his message out there...

I mean, we've all been guilty at one point or another of letting something distract us while we were driving (be it the phone, or the radio, or an ad on the side of the road), so why then is it okay to provide more distractions when there are already so many out there...Not saying it's right, just saying we already have enough to take our attention off the road...And even if you are the most cautious driver in the world, lets face it, there are some people out there who probably shoudnt be licensed to operate a bicycle let alone a car...yet, they do, so do you really want more stuff out there taking _these_ people's attention off the road???

I mean dontcha just love it when traffic comes to a screeching hault and you narrowly avoid having both the front and back end of your car smashed so a bunch of knuckleheads can pretend they're on CSI or somehting while they observe a fender bender pulled off on the side of the road???

Furthermore, I'm no great fan of the concept of late-term abortion, but, I find it ironic that people are trying to spread a pro life message by protesting in such a way that could possibly endanger the lives of many motorists on the freeway...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

jbmcb said:


> I'd say that people who find they have to slam on the brakes in response to a poster being displayed several hundred yards away, probably shouldn't be in possession of a license.





chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> So where is the line where drivers can safely be exposed to free speech? Or is a society that lives in their cars to be isolated from any protest signs?


You both are spot on. Protesting on a sidewalk is not to blame. It is 100% the drivers who are responsible for tying the traffic in the example so cited. Those above who have posted otherwise are just lousy drivers looking for scapegoats.
​


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Furthermore, I'm no great fan of the concept of late-term abortion, but, I find it ironic that people are trying to spread a pro life message by protesting in such a way that could possibly endanger the lives of many motorists on the freeway...


Let me say I don't care to make this a Roe v. Wade discussion, just expanding on the topic.

I had the exact opposite experience. I have participated in a couple of "Life Chain" events. For those that don't know what that is, it's a silent line of people holding signs along a road. No pictures, no inflammatory wording. Never saw any accidents, but numerous close calls were all from hecklers. Rather than ignoring the situation, they put others at risk in order to curse the participants or play "chicken".


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> You both are spot on. Protesting on a sidewalk is not to blame. It is 100% the drivers who are responsible for tying the traffic in the example so cited. Those above who have posted otherwise are just lousy drivers looking for scapegoats.
> ​


What BS! One would have to be have to be surprisingly insensitive not to register substantial shock and react accordingly when confronted by a graphically colored and detailed picture of a fetus, covered in blood and partially emerged from the birth canal. As I stated in the OP, there is a proper time and place and...standing above but, in the midst of six lanes of heavy traffic, was not the proper time of place for this!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Pentheos said:


> Nothing new here. A painting of Dennis Rodman used to backup Chicago traffic:
> 
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?...vcoPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V44DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2066,654124
> 
> Quote: "It doesn't take much to attract their attention; road kill will do it."


That should never happen again.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I do have to agree that no matter what is going on it is a Driver's responsibility to maintain focus and control of the vehicle. 

I don't think we will ever rollback the billboard industry and other distractions. 

I get frustrated when people slow down and look at a wreck. I must be one of the only people that resists the urge to look. It's off to the side the speed limit is 65 just keep going; no need to slow everyone down to 5mph and back up traffic for a mile because you are a voyeur... 

People just don't think about the other cars IMHO.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Most drivers don't allow enough space between themselves and the car ahead of them.


Which is why I drive a 9 year old Suburban with 1/4" steel bumpers. :icon_smile_big:

I remember a billboard of a bikini clad Heather Locklear that also backed up traffic regularly.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> What BS! One would have to be have to be surprisingly insensitive not to register substantial shock and react accordingly when confronted by a graphically colored and detailed picture of a fetus, covered in blood and partially emerged from the birth canal. As I stated in the OP, there is a proper time and place and...standing above but, in the midst of six lanes of heavy traffic, was not the proper time of place for this!


That's a compelling argument. As much as I sympathize with the anti-partial-birth-abortion lobby; there is a time and a place for such displays.

I don't think young children for example should be subjecting to such communication strategies because they are in the car with Mom & Dad. It takes the control of information away from the Parents.

A Parent should have the right to determine when, where, and how their child learns the truth regarding how babies are made and/or destroyed.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> A Parent should have the right to determine when, where, and how their child learns the truth regarding how babies are made and/or destroyed.


I am so itching to address that remark that I've spilled baby powder all over myself. But I'm not touching it, here, because this thread's not about abortion, much as Bird (below) is trying to bend it that way.



eagle2250 said:


> What BS! One would have to be have to be surprisingly insensitive not to register substantial shock and react accordingly when confronted by a graphically colored and detailed picture of a fetus, covered in blood and partially emerged from the birth canal. As I stated in the OP, there is a proper time and place and...standing above but, in the midst of six lanes of heavy traffic, was not the proper time of place for this!


They make you go in for the eye exam every year, right? And you're driving 35 in a 50 and gawking all around and fidgeting with the radio trying to get Rush? Pay attenttion to the road! Be responssible! Lousy driving is the fault of lousy drivers.

(I've missed you, Bird. You should visit my postings more often.)​


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

people in their cars should stop blabbing on their phone,that's what's causing all those distractions.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Howard said:


> people in their cars should stop blabbing on their phone,that's what's causing all those distractions.


I think it's illegal here and they just won't enforce it.

We had a car parked on top of my Dad's mailbox this last year; like a 17 yr old girl driving & texting on her way home at 0;am.


----------



## amansplen (Jul 15, 2009)

Well, of course we live in a country of freedom of speech and expression, but I do have to agree to several writers in this forum, that there are numerous lines that should not be crossed, though wanting to speech and express freely. Those lines are very small and easily to cross, even though it might happen unfortunately and out of a sudden and unwanted, but I think several lines should not be crossed. 

Above all, it sure is important to be allowed to express yourself and speak out your opinion, but I do consider it the best to think about that you want to say before literally spitting it in front of someone else feet.


----------



## obxsouth (Mar 18, 2009)

As a former journalist, an attorney by training and a divinity student, I am a fierce defender of the First Amendment. I am also opposed to abortion. That said, such demonstrations are not only detrimental to the public good (because of the safety concerns), they also do nothing to bolster their cause. In fact, such demonstrations, I believe, undermine the goals of the protesters.
The same was the case in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, when anti-abortion protesters disrupted the proceedings. This type of foolishness wins no support for the pro-life cause, and undermines those of us who wish to express our views in a civil manner. If there is one thing this country could use, it's civil public discourse.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> ...
> 
> They make you go in for the eye exam every year, right? And you're driving 35 in a 50 and gawking all around and fidgeting with the radio trying to get Rush? Pay attenttion to the road! Be responssible! Lousy driving is the fault of lousy drivers.
> 
> (I've missed you, Bird. You should visit my postings more often.)​


Why P2, I haven't listened to Rush since he got hooked on pain killers. I believe a real man should just embrace their pain...how about a hug?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

obxsouth said:


> As a former journalist, an attorney by training and a divinity student, I am a fierce defender of the First Amendment. I am also opposed to abortion. That said, such demonstrations are not only detrimental to the public good (because of the safety concerns), they also do nothing to bolster their cause. In fact, such demonstrations, I believe, undermine the goals of the protesters.
> The same was the case in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, when anti-abortion protesters disrupted the proceedings. This type of foolishness wins no support for the pro-life cause, and undermines those of us who wish to express our views in a civil manner. If there is one thing this country could use, it's civil public discourse.


Stop,pleeeeese: that's not what this thread's about.



eagle2250 said:


> Why P2, I haven't listened to Rush since he got hooked on pain killers. I believe a real man should just embrace their pain...*how about a hug? *


I have just parted the boughs of this manly pine in which I reside here in the deep, dark scary woods of Maine and am glancing fondly west to where I dream about the moonlight on the Wabash and long for the Indiana home I never had. Hug over.

Lovingly, P2
​


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I think it's illegal here and they just won't enforce it.
> 
> We had a car parked on top of my Dad's mailbox this last year; like a 17 yr old girl driving & texting on her way home at 0;am.


they should make it a law in NY,people still continue to ignore the rules.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

Howard said:


> they should make it a law in NY,people still continue to ignore the rules.


If people will use their cell phone despite the risk of a serious traffic accident do you think they'll be discouraged by the risk of a ticket? It would simply be another law to give the police probable cause to make a traffic stop.


----------



## obxsouth (Mar 18, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> I have just parted the boughs of this manly pine in which I reside here in the deep, dark scary woods of Maine and am glancing fondly west to where I dream about the moonlight on the Wabash and long for the Indiana home I never had. Hug over.
> 
> Lovingly, P2
> ​


The thread is about freedom of expression, which I addressed. Through your response to my post, your thoughts on the First Amendment can be easily surmised. You oppose it. And by the way, how are pine trees in the deep woods of Maine on topic?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

obxsouth = best new(ish) member in a long, long time! :aportnoy:

No offense to Howard's latest incarnation(s) :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

We have freedom of speech in this country and freedom of expression (whatever that means - ask the naked PETA lady); however, what would one think if someone displayed a billboard of showing sodomy or the proverbial "money shot"? The purpose is only to shock and create a distraction. 

The abortion protestors displaying their graphic posters on a highway overpass were presenting a public hazard at best. Most drivers are too easily distracted, and the mass of protesters would cause most drivers to rubberneck.

I believe in freedom of speech, but it should not infringe on my right to speed on the highway!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> I have just parted the boughs of this manly pine in which I reside here in the deep, dark scary woods of Maine and am glancing fondly west to where I dream about the moonlight on the Wabash and long for the Indiana home I never had. Hug over.
> 
> Lovingly, P2​




obxsouth said:


> The thread is about freedom of expression. How are pine trees in the deep woods of Maine on topic?


Correction; it's deep, _dark scary_ woods of Maine. It is germane because Eagle2250, an AAAC nemesis of mine, had just offered me an internet hug. Through tears, I was able to whisper him a few words of Back Home Again In Indiana, a tune from the 40s that he might be familiar with since he's from there. He's a moderator and has the power to grind me to internet bits, so whenever he addresses me, I snap to attention and respond in kind. I suggest you do likewise. Okay?
​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Stop, pleeeeese: that's not what this thread's about.





obxsouth said:


> The thread is about freedom of expression, which I addressed. Through your response to my post, your thoughts on the First Amendment can be easily surmised. You oppose it.


Nice try. Because I've asked you to pleeeeeese stop, then that, to you, is stomping on your freedom of expression? May I remind you, Mr. Attorney By Training (whatever t'whatever that means), that the freedoms you so cherish are not people to people, they are government to people, meaning: the government can't stop you from your pro-life protests, but I can; you start spewing that babble in my house and I'll show you the door and the government will back me up on my right to do so.

But again, as much as you and your new buddy Ksinc and Bird and others here want so desperately to make this about abortion, it's not. It's about a traffic jam. So pleeeeese stop.
​


----------



## obxsouth (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm not trying to make it about abortion. It's about free speech. My response would have been the same had the protesters been carrying pro-choice signs, or anti-vegetables signs or whatever. Causing a distraction on a roadway endangers the public welfare. By extension, I believe it undermines whatever point of view protesters put forward.
And while I would not be welcome in your home because my opinions differ from yours, if we had dinner in my home, or in my city, we may disagree on an issue, but I would defend to the death your right to say it. Now, may we shake hands and call a truce? Thisi s a place, after all, for civil discussion.
And for the record, I hold a J.D., but elected to remain in newspaper work after graduation. Thus the "lawyer by training" remark. I'm sorry if I offended you.
.


----------



## video2 (Feb 11, 2008)

Something from EU :icon_smile_big:

https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009482538_apeulithuaniacensorshiplaw.html


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> ...
> 
> But again, as much as you and your new buddy Ksinc and Bird and others here want so desperately to make this about abortion, it's not. It's about a traffic jam. So pleeeeese stop.
> ​


2P, you really need to stop doing whatever it is you are doing up in those "deep, dark Maine woods of yours...or perhaps you just need to practice reading, with a purpose. It has not been and is not my intent to "make this about abortion". My point throughout, has been to gather opinions as to whether or not such expressions of opinion should be allowed to occur in a fashion or place that could contribute to an increase in the hazards we must manage, as we navigate our respective community's roadways....try to stay on point, please!



Peak and Pine said:


> Correction; it's deep, _dark scary_ woods of Maine. It is germane because Eagle2250, an AAAC nemesis of mine, had just offered me an internet hug. Through tears, I was able to whisper him a few words of Back Home Again In Indiana, a tune from the 40s that he might be familiar with since he's from there. He's a moderator and has the power to grind me to internet bits, so whenever he addresses me, I snap to attention and respond in kind. I suggest you do likewise. Okay?
> ​


If I might quote the late, great Harry Carry, "Holy cow," I can "grind people to Internet bits!" By gawd, with that knowledge, I think I just grew (at least) two inches.  Humor aside, you are pushing your game a bit too far. Trying to come off as hard bitten is one thing and enthusiastically presenting a point of view can make for an interesting post but, your constant, veiled(?) insults of other forum members is becoming tiresome. Bring it to an end.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> 2P, you really need to stop doing whatever it is you are doing up in those "deep, dark Maine woods of yours...or perhaps you just need to practice reading, with a purpose. It has not been and is not my intent to "make this about abortion". My point throughout, has been to gather opinions as to whether or not such expressions of opinion should be allowed to occur in a fashion or place that could contribute to an increase in the hazards we must manage, as we navigate our respective community's roadways....try to stay on point, please!
> 
> If I might quote the late, great Harry Carry, "Holy cow," I can "grind people to Internet bits!" By gawd, with that knowledge, I think I just grew (at least) two inches.  Humor aside, you are pushing your game a bit too far. Trying to come off as hard bitten is one thing and enthusiastically presenting a point of view can make for an interesting post but, your constant, veiled(?) insults of other forum members is becoming tiresome. Bring it to an end.


I second this. I'm trying to think of anyone besides Spammers who has been ground since Eagle and I became moderators anyway.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Well, now I've gone and done it. Two of my favorite Moderators back to back and hopping all over me. One minute they're inviting me to Lansing (F'berg) or giving me internet hugs (Eagle), and then...whaam-o, I'm teetering on expulsion.

I try to be a good boy, honest, but I've got these Liberal tatoos all over me and they're really tough to hide. If I go, and I hope I don't (but if I had a nickle for every time they've threatened, etc.), if I go, then whatever liberals there are here (and I'm getitng little back-up from that quarter) will mourn amighty, maybe.

Can't we all just get along? (I know, Rodney King said it first, but I got his permission to use it at dinner last night.)​


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You and some of the righties don't play civilly very often. You, not us, were the one that brought up banning. You're still here - - -


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> obxsouth = best new(ish) member in a long, long time! :aportnoy:
> 
> No offense to Howard's latest incarnation(s) :icon_smile_wink:


I don't have an incarnation.


----------

