tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post6890719665595836410..comments2024-03-19T08:42:45.690-04:00Comments on The Delaware Libertarian: With apologies to Anonone: returning to the issue of free speech and gun controlSteven H. Newtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-18868596986916553862009-03-10T17:06:00.000-04:002009-03-10T17:06:00.000-04:00Now, you write that "The instructor has sent a pre...<I>Now, you write that "The instructor has sent a pretty significant message about the limits of debate at that university." Why? Did she censor him? No. Stop his presentation? No. Tell him not to come back to class? No. </I><BR/><BR/>Calling the police on someone has a chilling effect on free speech does it not? I know that if one of my professors had called the police on me as the result of a classroom discussion I would not want to step foot inside that professors classroom again.<BR/><BR/>According to the information we have it seems that not a single student complained about Walhberg's presentation, which leads me to believe that this was a hysterical, irrational reaction by the professor.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-60935157880653903972009-03-08T21:37:00.000-04:002009-03-08T21:37:00.000-04:00That is not a right, it is a power of government. ...<I>That is not a right, it is a power of government. A technicality, I realize, but an Important one.</I><BR/><BR/>Point taken and understood, thanks.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-33267780566360436822009-03-08T20:59:00.000-04:002009-03-08T20:59:00.000-04:00"but police officers do have the right to pull you...<I>"but police officers do have the right to pull you over and search your car under some circumstances."</I><BR/><BR/>That is not a right, it is a power of government. A technicality, I realize, but an Important one.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653459162258850269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-19036918982598831522009-03-08T20:30:00.000-04:002009-03-08T20:30:00.000-04:00Tom,I think that the Supreme Court would be intere...Tom,<BR/><BR/><BR/>I think that the Supreme Court would be interested to know that police have "absolutely no rights other than the ones that are intrinsic to all individuals" since quite a few of their cases have involved determining the rights of law enforcement agents over the rights of individuals in various circumstances. For example, I don't have the right to search your car under any circumstances but police officers do have the right to pull you over and search your car under some circumstances.<BR/><BR/>Yes, they are under no "general duty," but most take an oath to enforce the law and protect citizenry, etc. It isn't a duty as a legal obligation necessarily, but when police are on the job it is often called "on duty."<BR/><BR/>Yes, they should consider "the credibility of any report," and I would assume that they did, in this case. There is no evidence that they did not.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"Good Faith" does not include making claims for which there is no evidence, such as saying that students were "scared and uncomfortable" when in fact no one complained about such feelings.</I><BR/><BR/>There is no credible evidence that the teacher said that "students were "scared and uncomfortable'". None. And hearsay isn't credible. The only first hand report that we have is that Walberg himself said that he knew "the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable." There are no first hand witnesses commenting on the specifics of this incident other than Walberg.<BR/><BR/>What there truly is NO evidence for is that the teacher made her complaint based on the political views of her student.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-30653991730631133182009-03-08T17:00:00.000-04:002009-03-08T17:00:00.000-04:00If the bullet hits at 3 O'clock.What direction do ...If the bullet hits at 3 O'clock.<BR/><BR/>What direction do I move the rear sight? <BR/><BR/>If the bullet hits LOW at 4:30, <BR/>which way do I move the front sight? <BR/><BR/><BR/>I better not work out the Geometry in my math class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-71218133706331599642009-03-07T20:01:00.000-05:002009-03-07T20:01:00.000-05:00"From a legal perspective, are you saying that the...<I>"From a legal perspective, are you saying that the police don't have a right and a duty to investigate a reported threat?"</I><BR/><BR/>No anonone, from a legal perspective the police have <B>absolutely no rights</B> other than the ones that are intrinsic to all individuals. And even those may be somewhat curtailed by the Oath they swore and their duty as public <I>servants</I>.<BR/><BR/>As for "duty to investigate a reported threat", again the answer is no. In <I><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia" REL="nofollow">Warren v. District of Columbia</A></I> the Court ruled that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." There are many <A HREF="http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#5" REL="nofollow">similar cases</A>. Many states have enacted statutes barring complaints against police for failure to investigate reports, prevent crimes, etc.<BR/><BR/>Further, police should consider the credibility of any report and if they pursue it they should do so with a presumption of innocence, and in a way that does the minimum harm to the subject(s) of the report in case it turns out to be erroneous. (obviously things often don't work out that way in practice.)<BR/><BR/><I>"Or that people don't have the right under the first amendment to report what they, in good faith, perceive as a threat?"</I><BR/><BR/>"Good Faith" does not include making claims for which there is no evidence, such as saying that students were "scared and uncomfortable" when in fact no one complained about such feelings.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653459162258850269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-58924116089932383902009-03-07T08:41:00.000-05:002009-03-07T08:41:00.000-05:00Here is my totally unsupportable guess at the gist...Here is my totally unsupportable guess at the gist of what he said:<BR/><BR/>"If I walked in here tomorrow with a gun and started shooting, none of you could stop me because it is against the law for law-abiding people to carry guns on campus. I think this is wrong."<BR/><BR/>Something like that would be a pretty good attention-getting opening for a speech in a communications class! But even though the speaker would not mean it as a threat, I can understand why others might think it was, particularly in our age of mass shootings at schools and churches.<BR/><BR/>We disagree whether or not it should have been reported. I don't have enough information to make that judgment, so I will give the benefit of the doubt to the teacher. Sometimes "covering your ass" is a good thing, particularly if you think it might possibly be shot off with real bullets.<BR/><BR/>Finally, think about the analogy of "joking" about guns, bombs, or hijacking with a stewardess on a plane before it takes off. If you do it, no matter how unthreatening your comment is, you will almost certainly be removed from the flight and questioned, if not arrested. There is essentially zero tolerance for this speech. Similarly and unfortunately, given the mass murders by gunmen on campuses and in churches, people's sensitivity to perceived threats is much higher. It is a symptom of our age. <BR/><BR/>It was a good discussion, and your perspective as a professor was enlightening.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-82445868775095504692009-03-06T22:19:00.000-05:002009-03-06T22:19:00.000-05:00A1Just to close this out: I don't think that sugg...A1<BR/>Just to close this out: I don't think that suggesting her conduct was not the appropriate response is demonizing the professor.<BR/><BR/>I specifically said she should not be censured, and I said (admittedly in a later comment) that the individual who really blew it was the department head.<BR/><BR/>Part of the problem in this discussion, A1, is that I live and work in this milieu, and it is difficult to keep correcting your honest misconceptions about how things work inside universities.<BR/><BR/>You are wrong, for instance, that the university would not have publicly acknowledged the existence of students complaints. They would not have provided details, but they would have trumpeted from the rooftops any corroborating evidence to go with her suspicions.<BR/><BR/>You now focus quite closely on the issue of "good" or "bad" faith, as if that were the issue. It's not, not really. It's a fairly complicated issue of professional conduct in a judgment call situation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The burden of proof in such a situation is with the person making the accusation, and it is fairly clear from the police questioning that she raised the suspicion that he carried his gun onto campus in violation of existing policies. Otherwise they would have had neither motivation nor justification to run a list of his registered firearms and then quiz him over the locations. The police have no right to ask a citizen those questions without the existence of an accusation or a tip.<BR/><BR/>I say again; even if her motives were pure, the facts of the case as we know them do not justify the accusation.<BR/><BR/>We'll obviously agree to differ on this one.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-22054470902718677552009-03-06T21:53:00.000-05:002009-03-06T21:53:00.000-05:00He was so embarrassed that he went to the press in...<I>He was so embarrassed that he went to the press instead of school. Hmmm.</I><BR/><BR/>There's nothing suspicious about that. After what happened, he didn't trust the school (or especially the professor) to treat him fairly.Bowlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08368370082055845451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-7245530847385647392009-03-06T18:34:00.000-05:002009-03-06T18:34:00.000-05:00No problem, Tyler. Thanks for pointing out my Lati...No problem, Tyler. Thanks for pointing out my Latin misspelling. It was funny.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-59248801587652495572009-03-06T18:33:00.000-05:002009-03-06T18:33:00.000-05:00Hi Steve,Sorry about your server frustration!It se...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>Sorry about your server frustration!<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that many on blogs are concluding without evidence that she made this report because she disagreed with the political expression of this student. There is no reason to believe that that is the case. <BR/><BR/>I believe that the professor acted in good faith in reporting what she thought was a perceived threat. As you know, there are many other ways that a teacher could undetectably penalize a student for political expression that would not cause any attention like this did, so I don't think that she did it for that. My guess is that this communications professor hears a lot of opinions that she disagrees with, and I think it would become evident pretty quickly if she were punishing students for them. On the surface, it doesn't seem to be the case here.<BR/><BR/>I have carefully read your posts, and I don't think that there is any evidence that the teacher acted in bad faith in reporting her "perceived threat" but she is being demonized by many for doing what she did, including you, who wrote that " that her course of action was not appropriate."<BR/><BR/>In regards to the student being harmed, apparently, he was the one who went to the press with this story, not the professor or the University or the police. I don't have any problem with that, but then you shouldn't be complaining about this following him for the rest of his life, either. He doesn't seem to mind. In fact, he seems to be a bit of a martyr to me<BR/><BR/>How the U.S. Homeland Security System operates is not the responsibility of the professor or the student. I don't like it either, but that is a different diatribe, eh?<BR/><BR/>What this case really comes down to, in my mind, is to whether or not you want to penalize or smear school officials for good faith reporting of perceived threats. I believe that she felt a threat and reported it as part of her duties. Do you want to "chill" professors from reporting this type of thing in good faith? I don't. <BR/><BR/>As to your questions ;<BR/><I>1) Do you really think at this point he will receive a fair evaluation from someone on record as considering him a potential violent threat? </I><BR/><BR/>Possibly not, but this should be discussed with the department chair. I think he should be at least allowed to drop the class without penalty.<BR/><BR/><I>2) She has publicly characterized his classroom discussion as threatening, despite the fact that all of the evidence available suggests it was not.</I><BR/><BR/>Where did she <B>publicly</B> characterize his classroom discussion as threatening? She didn't. He went to the press. Read her statement again. It was not personal at all.<BR/><BR/><I>3) The student was embarrassed and intimidated enough not to come to class again for several days.</I><BR/><BR/>He was so embarrassed that he went to the press instead of school. Hmmm.<BR/><BR/><I>4) It will be a cold day in hell before that student can freely express his views in this class on any subject where he differs with the professor.</I><BR/><BR/>Honestly, I doubt that. He doesn't seem easily intimidated. He even said that he knew "the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable."<BR/><BR/>In regards to your other points, I was <I>purely speculating</I> that the professor would be hounded for the rest of her career and I would <I>bet</I> that she will receive death threats. Why? Because I have seen it happen in my house simply for pro-gun control letters to the editor. Also, I was using "Maybe one of her friends was killed at Virginia Tech" to make the point as to why she or someone else might be have a lower threat sensitivity, not that I have any evidence she did know somebody.<BR/><BR/>In regards to your points from my previous note and your answers to my six questions (thanks for the thoughtful reply), most of your responses were still speculative based on incomplete press reports. I did not read interviews from any other eyewitnesses or students that were present – did you? For example, if other students did complain to the University, the University probably would not be allowed to reveal that anyway. So all we have are the student's comments, limited official University statements, and speculation and comments from people who weren't there, including you and me.<BR/><BR/>I don't see the evidence for saying the teacher did not act responsibly and in good faith by reporting the threat. And apparently, she went by the book. <BR/><BR/>But even if your admittedly unsupported speculation in your last paragraph is what happened, I still think it is unfair to smear her in the press and blogs as someone who punishes students for expressing political views that she may not like when there is no evidence that was the case. I believe she and her chair acted in good faith.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I am not against people owning guns. <BR/><BR/>Best wishes for a safe flight,<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-30135494984376098212009-03-06T17:18:00.000-05:002009-03-06T17:18:00.000-05:00Sorry about the deleted comment. It was basically ...Sorry about the deleted comment. It was basically the same comment amended, and you literally posted your reply just as I deleted mine to re-post.Tyler Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009459340275592274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-18500601262624443732009-03-06T16:49:00.000-05:002009-03-06T16:49:00.000-05:00A1My frustration: I've written you three differe...A1<BR/>My frustration: I've written you three different answer and the server ate my homework every time. I'm now at an airport; maybe this server will allow me to speak.<BR/><BR/>I thought you'd appreciate the Dick Cheney shot. :)<BR/><BR/>Out of order, your concerns:<BR/><BR/>I did not quote the professor's entire statement because I did not have it when I wrote. Nonetheless, there is nothing substantive in it that I did not cover.<BR/><BR/>There is no First Amendment right involved in making a police complaint. The First Amendment deals with restraint of speech, not consequences. Presumably, if Wahlberg is convinced that her charge was malicious (I'm not advancing that thesis), he could sue.<BR/><BR/>The record: university police departments are accredited law enforcement organization with arrest powers. In order to access Wahlberg's list of registered firearms they had to enter an inquiry under his name in a national database. In order to justify that, they'd have to make a report into the DHS database regarding the fact that there was a complaint. Regardless of the fact that such a complaint was unfounded, if Wahlberg now goes into the military, into law enforcement, or into education he will--at the very least--be required to explain the complaint when it pops up on a background check. In certain cases, the existence of such a complaint is sufficient--whether proved or not--to require a waiver for a job. This is not the "permanent record" crap you dismiss it as; this is the reality of the American Homeland Security State.<BR/><BR/><I>Clearly, she felt a "perceived risk" and she followed the proper channels in dealing with it. She would have been derelict in her duties and irresponsible not to have followed through on it. In fact, it would have been easier for her to do nothing.</I><BR/><BR/>Given the preponderance of the evidence, she was undoubtedly correct in asking the advice of her chair. The chair exercised horrible judgment here.<BR/><BR/>How was the student harmed?<BR/><BR/>1) Do you really think at this point he will receive a fair evaluation from someone on record as considering him a potential violent threat?<BR/><BR/>2) She has publicly characterized his classroom discussion as threatening, despite the fact that all of the evidence available suggests it was not.<BR/><BR/>3) The student was embarassed and intimidated enough not to come to class again for several days.<BR/><BR/>4) It will be a cold day in hell before that student can freely express his views in this class on any subject where he differs with the professor.<BR/><BR/>Those are realities.<BR/><BR/>Notice how you then do <I>exactly what you accused me erroneously of do</I>: you assert that the professor will be hounded (evidence?) and has probably received death threats (evidence?); maybe one of her friends was killed at Va Tech (evidence?). I provided you with detailed explanations of exactly why your questions about the student himself were unfounded. You could not and did not answer those, and then shifted the argument to make the professor into a public-safety-minded martyr rather than admit what is evident from the information we have: <I>the student expressed no threat--clear or veiled--to merit this outcome</I>.<BR/><BR/>You're right that everybody has different levels of acceptable risk--but you do not have, she does not have the absolute right or (even as a professor) responsibility to impose an unusually low level of risk tolerance on other adults in a public setting.<BR/><BR/>Here's my final (and admittedly totally unsupportable) supposition about what happened. My gut tells me that his presentation unnerved her, and that she lost control of the class, and convinced herself in conversation with her chair that the issue was not that she blew the discussion moderation, but that the student was both to blame and dangerous. Again, I have no evidence of that, but I do have nearly thirty years of experience working in that environment, and I have seen that pattern play out on multiple occasions.<BR/><BR/>Gee I really hope my computer lets me post this.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-73046824476822315022009-03-06T15:56:00.000-05:002009-03-06T15:56:00.000-05:00Knock, knockA1, 'who is there?'Response: The Polic...Knock, knock<BR/><BR/>A1, 'who is there?'<BR/><BR/>Response: <BR/>The Police...<BR/>The Government...<BR/>The school administration...<BR/><BR/><BR/>A1: 'oh, good. I thought it might be the NRA.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-87346371828943017822009-03-06T14:22:00.000-05:002009-03-06T14:22:00.000-05:00Tyler,From a legal perspective, are you saying tha...Tyler,<BR/><BR/>From a legal perspective, are you saying that the police don't have a right and a duty to investigate a reported threat?<BR/><BR/>Or that people don't have the right under the first amendment to report what they, in good faith, perceive as a threat? <BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-52407056686361173882009-03-06T14:13:00.000-05:002009-03-06T14:13:00.000-05:00...he wrote, responding to a deleted comment...ano......he wrote, responding to a deleted comment...<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-64084671178465894012009-03-06T14:12:00.000-05:002009-03-06T14:12:00.000-05:00LOL."ad homonym"?Is that related to 'ad synonym' o...LOL.<BR/><BR/>"ad homonym"?<BR/><BR/>Is that related to 'ad synonym' or 'ad antonym'?<BR/><BR/>Please try not to communicate in a ("dead") language you obviously don't understand.<BR/><BR/>Also, it is just so revealing of your mindset that you dance around the 1st Amendment issue, as if being investigated and interrogated by the police for making non-threatening political statements in a university class is just hunky-dory. <BR/><BR/>No chilling or deterrent effect there, eh?<BR/><BR/>Gimme a break with this clown.Tyler Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009459340275592274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-17523630989550427112009-03-06T14:11:00.000-05:002009-03-06T14:11:00.000-05:00tsk, tsk, Tyler. Haven't we had our fun?VAH! DENUO...tsk, tsk, Tyler. Haven't we had our fun?<BR/><BR/>VAH! DENUONE LATINE LOQUEBAR? ME INEPTUM. INTERDUM MODO ELABITUR.<BR/><BR/>Whatever.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-6046371193131536042009-03-06T14:06:00.001-05:002009-03-06T14:06:00.001-05:00Hi Steve,I am sorry, the first part of my comment ...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry, the first part of my comment was cut which was: <BR/><BR/>I wanted to thank you for the nice response, until the comparison with Dick Cheney at the end. You really know how to hurt a guy, don't you?<BR/><BR/>Without going through each point step-by-step again, I understand why you are uncomfortable over the University's response. I am also uncomfortable with it, but in the aftermath of Virginia Tech and Columbine, I can understand why the professor did what she did.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, thanks.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-39448200818167967752009-03-06T14:06:00.000-05:002009-03-06T14:06:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tyler Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009459340275592274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-28535332487426104532009-03-06T14:01:00.000-05:002009-03-06T14:01:00.000-05:00And you also failed to provide the professor's ful...And you also failed to provide the professor's full statement on the matter:<BR/><BR/>“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times. As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”<BR/><BR/>Do you disagree with her statement of responsibility? Or are you just assuming with no evidence that she acted in bad faith because she disagreed with the student's thesis on the second amendment? <BR/><BR/>Clearly, she felt a "perceived risk" and she followed the proper channels in dealing with it. She would have been derelict in her duties and irresponsible not to have followed through on it. In fact, it would have been easier for her to do nothing.<BR/><BR/>As it turned out, this student was not a real threat. But what if she hadn't reported it, and he came back with guns blazing? <BR/><BR/>Now, you write that "The instructor has sent a pretty significant message about the limits of debate at that university." Why? Did she censor him? No. Stop his presentation? No. Tell him not to come back to class? No. <BR/><BR/>Tell me, Steve, specifically, whose and what rights were curtailed? First amendment rights? No. Second amendment rights? No. Fourth amendment rights? No.<BR/><BR/>Doesn't the professor have first amendment rights to report a perceived threat? Of course. Did the police violate anybody's rights in questioning the student? Apparently not. <BR/><BR/>But you say, "Wahlberg now has an official record with the university police of having had at least threatening behavior alleged against him. That will now show up in background checks for the rest of his life, despite the fact that the police do not appear to have found any validity to the complaint."<BR/><BR/>On what basis do you allege this? I didn't know college professors still pushed the old "permanent record" bogeyman. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I could say with much more certainty say that "now this professor will be hounded for the rest of her career by gun nuts who can't imagine that she might have actually experienced a real perceived threat." I would bet she has already started receiving death threats.<BR/><BR/>Steve, everybody has different levels of risk tolerance, often based on our life experiences. I know somebody who hates to drive in the rain because of an accident she was involved in on a rainy road. That this professor may have a lower risk tolerance level than you or me doesn't make what she did wrong. Maybe one of her friends was killed at Virginia Tech; that could lower one's level of perceived risk tolerance significantly. <BR/><BR/>Finally, the ad homonym about my alleged "history of bashing [my] political opponents with broad stereotypical strokes based on little or no situational evidence" is neither relevant or true. I always have evidence.<BR/><BR/>anononeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-44376671450622273862009-03-06T13:18:00.000-05:002009-03-06T13:18:00.000-05:00That's why I am so glad to be your 'colleague' (bl...That's why I am so glad to be your 'colleague' (blogleague?), Steve.Tyler Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009459340275592274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-40221505410799063232009-03-06T12:53:00.000-05:002009-03-06T12:53:00.000-05:00TylerA1 in this case is the surrogate for the argu...Tyler<BR/>A1 in this case is the surrogate for the argument that anti-2nd amendment rights "advocates" are making here and elsewhere.<BR/><BR/>Had A1 made the case elsewhere, I would not have bothered. But when you set up such an obvious "straw person" on my street, you're going to get what you deserve: called on it.<BR/><BR/>That, to me, is a fundamental difference between this blog and others: when I think somebody is making an poor argument, I will lay it out in detail with facts and references rather than simply calling the person an idiot.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-48203937007261091582009-03-06T12:48:00.000-05:002009-03-06T12:48:00.000-05:00Tyler,Does intervention include copious amounts of...Tyler,<BR/>Does intervention include copious amounts of beer and Whiskey? <BR/>And some food.<BR/><BR/>a pig.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-91426413978753649832009-03-06T12:46:00.001-05:002009-03-06T12:46:00.001-05:00Nevertheless, your evisceration of the clown was q...Nevertheless, your evisceration of the clown was quite nicely done!!Tyler Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009459340275592274noreply@blogger.com