»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Muzzle Awards
| The Alley |
|
Muzzle Awards |
|
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA 
|
Should Imus have been fired and why is this an important discussion in the media? Where are we headed as a nation in terms of suppressing free speech? Just curious. Some folks seem to think we've got a big problem. Take away free speech and what do you have? Yes, yes, Imus was very rude, his words deplorable. Personally, I don't like listening to him at all....but isn't that my choice? Was his firing strictly because MSNBC lost some of its advertisers...and is big business now going to dictate what comes out of the mouths of newscasters and talk show hosts or does it already? Is Rosie next? Lots of food for thought. FYI http://www.tjcenter.org/muzzles/muzzle-archive-2007/ |
||
| © Copyright 2007 J.A.A.Powell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
We can only hope the Rosie is next  |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Not a Poet -- I happen to appreciate the Rosies of this world to a degree. If we had more "Rosies" (and I don't mean of her sexual preference; I mean her conviction and fearlessness) in the Congress, maybe the term do-nothing Congress wouldn't exist. The Catholic Church didn't much like Joan of Arc at the time either, but look, now she's a saint. At least, Rosie speaks her mind. Without people that speak openly, we become a bunch of boring zombies. You can always turn off the tube; you don't have to watch her if you don't like her. Hey, but thanks for your opinion. Have a nice day.  |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Three words come to my head when I reflect on this discussion: The Telecommunications Act. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one of the worst blunders of the Clinton Administration that I'm still angry about, and example to why although I'm no fan of this administration, I was no fan of Clinton either. The act was simply a Pandora's Box for cultural oligopoly. Look what happened in result of the act. In 1986, there were approximately 80 major media companies that competed with each other. In 2005, that number has plunged to 6. Six! Not only that, but it has hurt on an economic level. In fact, over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion inlower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills. But what REALLY happened was that cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent. Moreover, industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications’ companies’ market value had fallen by about $2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs. It gets even scarier than that, folks. By leaving regulatory discretion to the Federal Communications Commission, the Act gave the FCC the power to issue rules that often sabotaged the intent of Congress. And while corporate special interests all had a seat at the table when this bill was being negotiated, no one from the public did. Nor were average citizens even aware of this legislation’s great impact on how they got their entertainment and information, and whether it would foster or discourage diversity of viewpoints and a marketplace of ideas, crucial to democratic discourse. * * So where am I going with this? The central travesty of this legislation and how it was sold to the is really exactly like how the USA PATRIOT Act was; 1) it was void of public input, 2) Congress hastily acted on this compromise without even reading most of the legislation, and 3) it was sold and promoted by the red herring that is the Decency Act, by exploiting the emotions of Americans that were rightfully concerned over the violent, profane and sexual content saturating the networks, just like the USA PATRIOT Act was sold and promoted by exploiting the emotions Americans had after September 11th and wrapping it up in pseudo-patriotic graffiti. It's ironic that President Clinton signed this Act into law at some glitzy ceremony in the Library of Congress, where he said that “consumers will receive the benefits of lower prices, better quality and greater choices in their telephone and cable services, and they will continue to benefit from a diversity of voices and viewpoints in radio, television and print media.”, yet this was a law that did not involve any of those average citizen consumers he spoke of, and rather journalists chose to write about the legislation in terms of business, not in terms of how it would impact public policy. Heck, even some veteran Washington insiders admitted publicly they were surprised such an ambitious bill totally lacked public discussion. Democracy is what has been hurt most of all from this deal. With all the media mergers that followed its signing into law, the media infrustructure is less and less diverse than it was in previous decades, where the same small handful of giant corporations own not only radio and TV stations, but even newspapers, movie studios, billboards, concert venues, you name it. At the same time, as the Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in 2004: “Most sectors of the media arecutting back in the newsroom, both in terms of staff and the time they have to gather and report the news ...journalists face real pressures trying to maintain quality.” So, in the process, it has hurt the quality and diversity of music being played on the radio as well. By 2001, the number of radio station owners dropped about 25%, from 5,100 in 1996 to 3,800 owners. The FCC found in their own studies that the number of average stations per market fell from 13 to below 10 in the same time frame. And a study done by the Future of Music Coalition published November 18, 2002 documented the following changes: * 1) Ten companies dominate two-thirds of the radio audience, with just two companies, Clear Channel and Viacom, owner of Infinity Broadcasting, controlling 42 percent of listeners and 45 percent of the radio industry revenues. 2) Nearly ALL radio markets are dominated by just four radio companies, controlling at least 70 percent of the radio audience, with concentration even greater in smaller markets. 3) Even fewer companies control the amount and source of news the radio listeners hear. Just fourcompanies control what commercial radio listeners hear on news format stations. * Also, between 1994 and 2001, the number of full-time radio newsroom staff shrank by 44 percent, and part-time news staff by 71 percent. And since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed, minority ownership of radio stations has plunged 14 percent, according to the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters. * I have been working at KBOO Community Radio for two years now, and in fact we currently are in the end of a bi-annual Membership Drive to continue funding the station, thus keeping it alive (we're currently $23,000 behind where we should be, which is not a pleasing sign). I've felt all too well the devastating effects such legislation have generated because I work alongside approximately 450 other volunteers who yearn to harness a megaphone for the public, for the community, a fraction of which are among the 10,000 radio employees who lost their jobs in result of the massive market buy-outs, including Don Manning, who enjoyed playing jazz at what was once a locally-owned jazz station in the Sacramento market, but was purchased by Clear Channel and laid off, and now runs a regular jazz program every Wednesday afternoon at 1:00 P.M on KBOO. I've seen how the already overblown decency standards have crushed home-grown radio and have seen diversity evaporate all across our media landscape, where everywhere you go on the television and radio dial these days, you hear and see things ubiquitously like Anna Nicole Smith news-flashes, the Keith Richards father snorting craze and the cross-marketing of bow-flex machines and tadalafil that can get your freak on for as much as 36 hours. That's pretty much all I see across the major media landscape, this same sort of recycled and regurgitated superficial content that further distracts the public from important issues, further limits the opportunities of new artists in finding their way onto the radio, and further distance the American public from the cultural megaphone, where now your best bet at picking up your fifteen minutes of fame is by being caught doing something stupid or grotesque on YouTube or crawling onto some reality-television program. Compromise in the world of business elitism is too often a oxymoron, ESPECIALLY with this particular episode when these lobbyists from these giant corporations actually went to court to force the re-writing of every little thing they didn't like, where Congress was asleep at the wheel and allowed them to govern our own government. In the aftermath, it is democracy that suffers most. * Don't get me wrong here, what Don Imus said was disgusting and screams of both racism and misogyny, and I'm glad that the public has responded this way, just as I wish they'd also respond to equally as controversial remarks Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck have made without stifling their right to speak. But I do also fear very much that the FCC and these same lobbying interests in Congress will use this as an excuse to further deregulate our airwaves and further monopolize the media environment under the guise of "decency", which I find actually more troubling. It's truly political to a huge degree. I'm not sure when I'll be able to forgive Clinton and the Congress at that time for the Telecommunications Act, just as I'm not sure when I'll be able to forgive Bush and the rubber-stamp Congress for his constant lust for further executive power, and the passive allowance of it. THIS is pivotal to why I'm a registered Independent. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
"Don't get me wrong here, what Don Imus said was disgusting and screams of both racism and misogyny, and I'm glad that the public has responded this way. But I do also fear very much that the FCC and these same lobbying interests in Congress will use this as an excuse to further deregulate our airwaves and further monopolize the media environment under the guise of "decency", which I find actually more troubling." Noah, exactly! My fears, as well, and I don't understand why more Americans are not concerned. Absolute power absolutely corrupts, right?! Good luck on your fundraising, Noah. I found out about the Muzzle Awards listening to Air-America radio which has streaming radio through the internet btw...not something you would hear on regular news, of course. Thanks for your input, Noah. Have a good day! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course we need more Rosies! We need a chorus of people proclaiming that the government actually knocked down the World Trade Center because everybody knows that steel doesn't melt!  I think she's a complete loser in every sense of the world and yet I certainly do not advocate censoring her. I will, however, draw the line at wishing there were more of her! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As far as the subject matter, you raise good points and ask good questions, Iliana. My feelings are torn on this one. I'm not a strong believer in censorship and yet I do believe that people who have a public soapbox, be it television, radio, movies or whatever, do indeed have some type of responsibility to maintain. We can just as easily say here at PIP that censorship is out and N words, C words, F words, etc can be used whenever chosen. For those who would complain, we would simply say, "If you don't like them, don't read them." We could allow poems like "The Glory of the KKK", in which the author writes of the pleasure of seeing blacks swinging from trees. After all, it's a privately-owned site. Fortunately we don't because we have an owner who feels a responsibility to whatever public may wander down our lane (not to mention, of course, his own moral convictions). In these cases, you all would scream bloody murder if these things were allowed. Am I wrong, Noah? Then how can you not be as equally incensed about the Imus remarks? MSNBC is a channel available to any viewing public. How many, do you think, tune in so that they can hear 17 and 18 year old girls, in college to get a degree, referred to as "ho's"? That's not what they asked for no more than if they had surfed onto PIP and was confronted with some biased, profane poem. My view is that Imus SHOULD be censored and punished....but not by the government. The government should not have to have a part in this. If Ron deletes a poem for bad taste or bans a member for corruptive actions, it's not because the government tells him to. It's because it's his place and he polices it and will only accept what he wants to accept. IMUS should be banned by the network he works for. If they drag their feet, they should be confronted by their sponsors. Should the sponsors not act, they should be picketed by the public. Someone will get the message somewhere down the line. Iliana, whether or not business runs the media is not even questionable....of course they do.....and the public runs business. There are two interesting facets to this incidents. First, the Imus screw-up was reported by the MEDIA. Then, after, having reported it and after getting the public all heated up about it, they complain of censorship and praise freedom of speech. What's wrong with that picture????? Second, this whole thing revolves around one incident. That's what it should be about....one man making a big boo-boo. Yet look what happens. I listened to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today and I was very disappointed with both of them. Forget the one incident. Now it's about the sanctity of the media, the definitions of free speech, examples of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpeton, the Duke lacrosse team scandal, blah, blah, blah. Even you, friend Noah, climb on board with talk of the Patriot Act, the declining number of radio stations, the tellecommunications Act, Linbaugh, Savage, Beck......all of this means nothing. It's one simple incident. Imus screwed up....that's all. He made a dumb statement and apologized for it. There's no need for comparisons to rap music or lining up rosters of others who should be censored, too. People say "Well, it's bigger than just that one statement". NO, IT'S NOT!!!! That's all it is. Just as the O.J. lawyers tried to portray his trial as being so many things it wasn't, including "the test that would lead to the unraveling of the entire Justice system " if O.J. were found guilty......it was nothing more than a murder trial....period. We now have all the members of the media determined to make it bigger than it is....."If they can fire Imus, who could be next?" "Is this the end of freedom of speech?" "Will radio personalities now be afraid to speak their minds?"....they are all circling the wagons to protect one of their own, even while they are decaring they do NOT agree with his actions. IT WAS ONE SMALL INCIDENT. There is no need for this feeding frenzy, this hysteria over our legal system, our inalienable rights, freedom of the press, now being conducted by members of the media. Don't make it important by attaching a crusade to it.... |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Thanks for your insights, Mike. What I like about Rosie is that she is fearless and cares more about social problems than many. But, I can understand why men don't much like her and you are entitled to your opinion. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: I've never liked Rosie either. She's just so negative all the time, she's too much fire and brimstone and rarely speaks of how we can positively shape the world in alternative. She has the right to speak her mind, and I too oppose censorship (although if she says something along the lines of Imus she deserves to lose sponsorships in result) but I believe Rosie is overrated myself and doesn't inspire me. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
True, Rosie wears her heart on her sleeve. I never said I was nuts about her, but I am inspired by her boldness and fearlessness. Those are the qualities I would like to see more of in today's culture -- people unafraid to voice their opinions and that's what I meant when I said more "Rosies." I guess you would have to be a woman to understand. I have to admit that even Ann Coulter whom I really do not tolerate even inspires me when it comes to her qualities of being unafraid to voice her mind. You see, I was raised that girls/women kept their mouths shut -- seen but not heard -- and to always be sweet. Maybe Rosie being so vocal impresses me because she goes against those rules that were shoved down my throat. She seems real even though her opinions may seem wacko to some. If they end up firing Rosie, then I bet you that the advertisers on ABC will lose the support of many women! On another note, Obama sort of lost some of my confidence yesterday when he said Imus should be fired. I would have been much happier with him if he had said that people should demonstrate their disapproval to the advertisers or change the channel. I have to admit if I were Imus's boss, though, I would have never hired him to start with! It's another case where the press and politics are dictating the direction of our country. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: No, Michael, you're absolutely right here. I earlier acknowledged that I found Imus' comments disgusting, and in fact it bewilders me that Imus wasn't disciplined long before this incident for all the other remarks he's made, from calling the New York Knicks "chest-thumping pimps" to saying that he "didn't know that Allan Bloom was coming in from the back end." I'm glad he lost sponsorships nearing the triple digits from this, and if there is any silver lining in this whole mess, it's that there's an opportunity we can have a more earnest national dialogue about these serous issues with proven legs. I just have a problem, as you indicate, with the FCC and the government getting all wrapped up in this, and playing politics out of this under a guise of "decency". quote: It's interesting you accuse ME of "attaching a crusade" to me, when the point I was trying to make to begin with is that the FCC, lobbyists and government officials have been making crusades over single incidents like the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, perhaps inevitably the Imus comment. Did the public not have the right to be offended, but also paranoid, about the FCC and the federal government getting all involved in that Super Bowl incident and exploiting that single incident as an excuse to further mass regulation and corporate ownership? That's EXACTLY what happened, when the FCC voted 3-2 to relax rules limiting ownership of TV stations, radio stations and newspapers, allowing broadcast networks to own TV stations that reach 45% of the public (up from 35% previously) under the guise of "cable and the Internet has made previous regulations obsolete", and the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate fast-tracked approval of The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act that increases tenfold the FCC's maximum broadcast indecency fine to $325,000 per violation; where there aren't any real regulations about controlling expressions of violence, or of racism, sexism or any other broadcast statement violating civil rights or human rights, but if you say "P-word off" it constitutes that $325,000 fine. If you step foot in any community radio station, you'll understand exactly how strong the pressure is in the working environment; where you have to train 450 volunteers at KBOO alone (not to mention all the new faces that perenially come in) in these indecency trainings, and learn how to press the "Dump" button within three seconds of someone either intentionally or accidentally blurting out profanity to filter it out (and praying that individual won't say another profane thing as the memory drive of the filter re-loads) I believe this single incident is truly a wake-up call more than anything. This is just the tip of the iceberg here, folks, and what's especially ironic here is while the mainstream media is hollering away at this Imus story, it's truly the mainstream media's fault to begin with that this sort of racism and hate speech on talk radio has persisted, which they have actually profited from for about twenty years now. As I read earlier yeserday on one blog, it's just like this scene from "Casablanca", when this corrupt prefect of police closes down "Rick's" Café American." and his excuse for doing so is "I am shocked that there is gambling going on here" when the casino manager says, "your winnings inspector." Do you seriously not believe, Michael, that no government official or FCC communicator will rise to the occasion and try and exploit this single incident for a larger agenda to cast a wider net of regulation in every corner of our country? They are the ones leading this crusade. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It's interesting you accuse ME of "attaching a crusade" to me, when the point I was trying to make to begin with is that the FCC, lobbyists and government officials have been making crusades over single incidents like the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, perhaps inevitably the Imus comment. You misunderstood me, Noah. I wasn't accusing you personally....notice that I also mentioned Limbaugh, Beck and anyone who has made more of this than it is. What the FCC decides to make of this - who knows? - but at this point it is almost a non-incident. Imus screwed up, apologized and the apology was accepted. The Janet Jackson case was exceptional, involving an event with world-wide exposure and tens of millions of viewers tuned in. The network had an obligation to have safeguards against such an incident. Anyone who knows the Imus show knows he is a "shock jock". People did not tune into the Super Bowl to view Janet Jackson's breast, as pathetic as it was. I realize the media will always rise up to protect one of their own and throw a lot of "what ifs" into the mix to complicate the issues, but this was an almost non-issue which could have been resolved much more easily than it was due to all of the publicity. The government has had nothing to do with the Imus firing. It was all NBC and CBS caving in to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton....period. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (04-13-2007 04:18 PM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Okay, I understand!  But it still remains quite curious why it is NOW that sponsors and media executives decided to respond in full to such a degrading comment that Imus mentioned, when in fact there have been both other shock-jocks like Howard Stern and AM radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh who have said things over the course of at least this last decade that were equally as offensive, like when Michael Savage was asked whether the Voting Right Acts intended to counteract racial discrimination at the ballot box was trying to “put a chad in every crack house.” I'm sure a vast majority of Americans take equaly as much offense to statements like that, but sponsors and executives didn't respond to discipline instances like that as they did Imus. I'm certainly glad the national response has been made here, but you still have to ask yourself what made this particular instance unique among hundreds of other equally as offensive single incidents. I agree with you that ultimately this is much ado about little, but something is touching on the raw nerves of many and so I believe it's worth fathoming what it might be, and indeed if officials will exploit our emotions once again. quote: But couldn't it easily be argued that the wardrobe malfunction incident could have been resolved much more easily as well; while certainly it was, after all, the Super Bowl, you could simply respond by disciplining and/or fining the network and the choreographers, and initiating rules regarding some sort of dress code or at least increased oversight on the attire of live performers on live broadcast performances, rather than resort to a mass regulation campaign? quote: I strongly agree, and what I was pointing out to begin with was just that; this incident has indeed been blown way out of proportion, and when that happens, consequentially, it's so easy for others to take advantage of the emotions of the mass public to achieve their own ends or intentions. THAT'S what I'm worried about, and presently the fears are just "what ifs" but when you look back to when the Fairness Doctrine began weakening, "what ifs" often evolve to "and ifs", rather than "as ifs". Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Just to throw a little more into the mix. YouTube is, of course, gaining the spotlight. Now with the grotesque and gruesome execution by the drug cartel person on uTube, I will bet that the movement to suppress the communication channels broadens. For sometime now, there has been a movement on the Hill to control the internet. Noah, I agree the warning lights are blinking. When the press, which is very controlled, covers these types of stories they always seem to be coordinated with a political agenda. What's your thinking on this (the internet control issue)? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
But it still remains quite curious why it is NOW that sponsors and media executives decided to respond in full to such a degrading comment that Imus mentioned, - Noah It was all NBC and CBS caving in to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton....period. - 'deer Asked and answered.... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
How fast will he come back? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Imus can always change his image. He can become a cartoon character on South Park so he can say and do just about anything he wants. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
rwood -- hehehe....you're too funny! Brad -- I have no idea. Thanks ya'all for your comments. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
To all of the above: how fast can Respect be brought back? I was never a fan of Imus, nor Rosie. They both lost my respect long ago. But for some reason, I'm still trying my hardest to bring back respect that was lost in the Civil War of many nations. Equalness belongs to all sectors. When we regain that, overall, we might see some change. But, one small voice in the wilderness...is just that. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
SIL, I'm probably misunderstanding your response. First off, I don't think things were ever equal so it would be hard to bring back something that never existed. According to the Bible, Eve came out of Adam's rib and, therefore, woman is a help mate to man...not an equal (though I don't interpret the Bible like most people do; I do think we were created equal despite what it says based on the very first chapters in Genesis...the Lilith mythology and other passages...not St. Paul though). As for equality in cultural and racial differences, has there ever been a time when members of one race or culture didn't look down on another? My ideal would be the same as yours, equality for all -- we are talking about a perfect world, and no doubt, we all long for that. My concerns with shutting up the big mouths, like Imus and Rosie, not to mention Bill O'Reilly, Keith Obermann, and others, is that whether I like them or not, I believe they have the right to say what they want and that it is up to management to hire and fire. If people think government wasn't involved in this matter with Imus, I suspect those people are wrong -- for one thing Imus met with the girls for his apology and reconciliation in the Governor's Mansion. I don't think politics should dictate speech; I think we as a people need to be the ones who hold people accountable. There have been a number of attempts in the past few years to restrict our speech (thus changing the Constitution even further than it has already been changed). I am totally opposed to recent changes already made affecting the right to habeas corpus, and further changes. My feeling is that we should, as a people, have enough good manners to respect other people's feelings, hold our speech to high standards, and treat everyone equally. It's a matter of manners, not law. Although the civil rights movement and laws passed associated with it sure did help to clean up some inequality, that's true. I guess, I wouldn't be opposed if they passed a law that women got equal pay for equal work to men, either...lol. But when it comes to speech...I don't want censorship instituted by the government and I fear that this is going to be an issue again real soon since it has been on the back burner just waiting for the right moment. Karilea, you point out something that is quite true though. Once respect is lost, it is lost. It is a very difficult thing to restore. The best we can hope for is "respect" in the form of acting respectful. But, I'm still a bit confused by your response and hope you will email me and explain. Also, one small voice, I hope in some cases, can start a whole choir. Who is the small voice you're referring to? The girls? Al Sharpton? Imus? It's the choir members who have to work in a concerted effort to bring about change and I think that is happening on many levels in today's America. African Americans have a choir director in Al Sharpton and other leaders. The undocumented workers have gotten their choirs together. They all started with little voices. I don't always like the songs sung by the choirs but they can sing 'em. Change is happening; maybe not as fast as we'd like, but it is. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Balladeer- hehehe... yes, yes steel melts. but here are some things you don't know. -The wtc was made to prevent "tipping over." -Allot of buildings are made this way -my Chemistry building is made to implode. "to protect the oter buildings. -Sky scraper are also built to prevent torsion. (guess why) Thats all for now -Juju |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Government censorship, and a private organization "firing" someone are two different things right? although, I will add, that we all agree with censorship, and its necessity ... it's just the degree with which it is enforced we disagree upon. Should we be able to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre, just for the fun of it? Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
