The Third Group
I have said before that there are three kinds of parties in the controversy over sex education in Montgomery County. First, there are those people who are concerned about the innocence of children, who believe in a certain sense of modesty, feel that the modern world has become too sexualized, and do not believe the public schools should contribute to the tawdriness. Second, there are those who believe that the public schools should educate young people about the objective facts of sexuality in order to lead them to make better decisions in their own lives, and to have knowledge of their own feelings and the feelings of those around them, with the result that they will be better citizens.
Those two groups can hold a debate and come to a conclusion. They are not actually opposed to one another, in fact a member of one group should have no difficulty seeing the point of view of the other. It is really just a matter of emphasis, is it more important to protect their innocence even though they may find themselves in situations that they don't know how to deal with, or is it better to give them knowledge that they may not be ready for?
But there is a third group. This group wants to disrupt. Unfortunately, this group tends to use the language of religion to insist that their views are not only superior but infallible, because they emanate directly from God. This group demonizes people who are different from them, seeing only evil and immorality where a person stands. The third group believes a conspiracy exists, where some people want to be treated with respect. This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.
The third group does not want to talk about the issues. The school district is going to teach about sexual variation, and soon a curriculum will be offered up which will discuss some facts about homosexuality, and the third group will be against it. Not because the facts are wrong, or because the emphasis is wrong, but because we shouldn't be talking about this topic at all. We will see the third group continue to interrupt, perhaps with lawsuits, certainly in the press.
We have had, in our comments section, some people from all three groups. We have heard some articulate conservative voices, people who are concerned about some of the things that might be taught, and who are making the arguments that support their views. I tend to lean the other way, personally, but I appreciate their expression and am glad they come here to discuss. And of course we've got people who come here to present the case for accepting and respecting sexual minorities, because, well, that is an important part of what this group stands for. On both sides, I might say, we have those who are more and less articulate, and those who are more and less short-fused. It's not all pretty, there are idiots like me who stick their feet in their mouths, but in general I think it makes a lively and worthwhile dialogue.
But the third group visits us, as well. The image that comes to mind is the chimpanzee in the zoo who learns to poop in his hand and throw it at people. The chimp is locked up in a cage, I understand why he's got a bad attitude. But I really don't know why somebody who just knows their morals are better than everyone else's, who just knows that gay people have an "agenda" that they are trying to trick the rest of us into accepting, who just knows that truth can only come from God, and God speaks only to them ... I don't know why they come here to fling poop.
But that's the controversy over sex-ed in Montgomery County. It's not whether to include more or less detail or information at a younger or older age or whatever, it's whether we can discuss the subject at all. Some people want to stop all talk by any means. It's up to the rest of us, the first two groups, to see that the discussion is held, that it is open, that it is civil.
Those two groups can hold a debate and come to a conclusion. They are not actually opposed to one another, in fact a member of one group should have no difficulty seeing the point of view of the other. It is really just a matter of emphasis, is it more important to protect their innocence even though they may find themselves in situations that they don't know how to deal with, or is it better to give them knowledge that they may not be ready for?
But there is a third group. This group wants to disrupt. Unfortunately, this group tends to use the language of religion to insist that their views are not only superior but infallible, because they emanate directly from God. This group demonizes people who are different from them, seeing only evil and immorality where a person stands. The third group believes a conspiracy exists, where some people want to be treated with respect. This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.
The third group does not want to talk about the issues. The school district is going to teach about sexual variation, and soon a curriculum will be offered up which will discuss some facts about homosexuality, and the third group will be against it. Not because the facts are wrong, or because the emphasis is wrong, but because we shouldn't be talking about this topic at all. We will see the third group continue to interrupt, perhaps with lawsuits, certainly in the press.
We have had, in our comments section, some people from all three groups. We have heard some articulate conservative voices, people who are concerned about some of the things that might be taught, and who are making the arguments that support their views. I tend to lean the other way, personally, but I appreciate their expression and am glad they come here to discuss. And of course we've got people who come here to present the case for accepting and respecting sexual minorities, because, well, that is an important part of what this group stands for. On both sides, I might say, we have those who are more and less articulate, and those who are more and less short-fused. It's not all pretty, there are idiots like me who stick their feet in their mouths, but in general I think it makes a lively and worthwhile dialogue.
But the third group visits us, as well. The image that comes to mind is the chimpanzee in the zoo who learns to poop in his hand and throw it at people. The chimp is locked up in a cage, I understand why he's got a bad attitude. But I really don't know why somebody who just knows their morals are better than everyone else's, who just knows that gay people have an "agenda" that they are trying to trick the rest of us into accepting, who just knows that truth can only come from God, and God speaks only to them ... I don't know why they come here to fling poop.
But that's the controversy over sex-ed in Montgomery County. It's not whether to include more or less detail or information at a younger or older age or whatever, it's whether we can discuss the subject at all. Some people want to stop all talk by any means. It's up to the rest of us, the first two groups, to see that the discussion is held, that it is open, that it is civil.
46 Comments:
"This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out."
This is a bigoted lie. Who has suggested "punishing and abusing homosexuals"?
You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms. They want to push the boundaries until none are left.
You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms
*************
What makes you think you know what "society's norms" are for sex?
Do the non existent "ex gays" fall into society's norms?
You do not think that CRC members, etc. have sex whatever way they choose..... anal, oral or whatever? Would that be considered
sexual activity that is not within society's norms???????
Anonymous said...
"This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out."
This is a bigoted lie. Who has suggested "punishing and abusing homosexuals"?
You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms. They want to push the boundaries until none are left.
I gotta say, I love it when they do this. Thanks, Anon.
JimK
anonymous said, "You forgot the group that wants to legitimize and affirm sexual activity that is not within society's norms."
Would this be outside your version of "society's norm?"
Court OKs Group Sex in 'Swinger' Clubs
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3541844.html
did anyone ever notice that whenever Jim gets in trouble, he starts talking about excrement?
quite a puerile tendency
I wonder what reaction he thinks he's getting
I'm copying this one and sending it out to all his fellow CAC committee members
Will yousend it out under a real name- or just anon- that will make a big impression - as it does with us
"Will yousend it out under a real name- or just anon- that will make a big impression - as it does with us"
I'll sign it. They all know me.
"But that's the controversy over sex-ed in Montgomery County. It's not whether to include more or less detail or information at a younger or older age or whatever, it's whether we can discuss the subject at all."
You know, TTF needs to get their screwy story straight. Does CRC want to teach their "hatefulness and bigotry" or does it want to stop all talk about the subject?
And, just to spark a new round of epithets and illogic with a reasonable question, why can't the new curriculum teach that scientists have not determined what causes homosexuality? And remember, Jim, anything you say may wind up in the papers.
Anon you are fixated on Jim..why?
Jealousy...??
Obsession..????
Lunacy....????
Psychotic..???
Wish you had a seat on CAC???
I bet Jon Ward over at Wash Times would relish your "tidbits."
"Anon you are fixated on Jim..why?"
Isn't he the one writing these posts?
Anon's a flamer - and not in a good way. He (I'll make the gender assumption) sounds like the annoying half-bully nobody likes in high school.
Anon comes in, calls Jim a bigoted lying, puerile conspiracy member, and then threatens to gossip with his friends about all the mean things Jim is saying about him. He then threatens to tell the teacher, too.
Anon - grow up.
CRC Anon will never tell what was said from a CRC member side ever.
They lie..we all know that.
Anonymous said...
"Anon you are fixated on Jim..why?"
Isn't he the one writing these posts?
**************************
...and Peter Sprigg/PFOX does not write thing....?????
Get real....Should someone take all the hateful things Sprigg has written/said about homosexuals and say look what that CAC member writes and has said? Should everyone point out his link to Dobson?
"Anon's a flamer - and not in a good way. He (I'll make the gender assumption) sounds like the annoying half-bully nobody likes in high school.
Anon comes in, calls Jim a bigoted lying, puerile conspiracy member, and then threatens to gossip with his friends about all the mean things Jim is saying about him. He then threatens to tell the teacher, too.
Anon - grow up."
Oh please. Do a word search for "bigot" "liar" and "hateful"- you'll find most of the hits are from Jim, Kay and Andrea.
I'm not going to gossip- I'm going to show the actual statements made by Jim. The committee (which isn't the teacher) needs to know about the ugliness that they're dealing with.
"puerile" applied perfectly to this post.
"...and Peter Sprigg/PFOX does not write thing....?????
Get real....Should someone take all the hateful things Sprigg has written/said about homosexuals and say look what that CAC member writes and has said? Should everyone point out his link to Dobson?"
I don't think I've heard Peter Sprigg make any personal comments about Jim. Too much class.
Sprigg's position in Dobson's group is well known and, who are you kidding, you bring it up constantly. People on our side acknowledge our associations as opposed to TTF, which tried to hide its plotting with GLAAD and GLSEN until the CRC outed them.
CRC anon...keep in dreaming.
Kay
throwing out incomplete sentences won't hide the fact that you're a liar
let's see some statements that Sprigg has made about Jim
throwing out incomplete sentences won't hide the fact that you're a liar
**************
CRC Anon....
Third Group
and she wants us to believe she's not "free" and "snow white"
CRC Anon..
Third Group
CRC anon said...Sprigg's position in Dobson's group is well known
****************************
Peter Sprigg
“We think homosexuality is a gender identity disorder, and therefore homosexuals are not fit to be role models,” said Peter Sprigg, senior director of culture studies for the Family Research Council, based in Washington.
Revealed: the tangible harms and significant costs to society wrought by homosexuality -- including higher rates of promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse
Sprigg argues that homosexuals are likely to change marriage more than marriage will change homosexuals, because they are: less likely to enter into long-term relationships; less likely to be sexually faithful; and less likely to stay together for a lifetime.
He shows how children are harmed by the deliberate creation of motherless or fatherless families, and demonstrates that same-sex marriage would logically lead to marriages based on polygamy, incest, and pedophilia.
“I think we have a whole generation that has been raised on pro-homosexual mythology.”
Sprigg says higher education has been a big culprit, with public schools playing a smaller role. He notes that polls show that those with a college education are more likely to support same-sex “marriage.”
“That’s not because they’re more intelligent,” he said. “It’s because they’ve been subjected to this kind of teaching.”
"[Homosexuals] feel if they can indoctrinate children at an early age, those children will never even be open to the message that other groups have been telling the truth about homosexuals — which is that people are not born gay and that they can change," - Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council40
(Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, but homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.[ Peter Sprigg, “Homosexuality and Children”; Volume 15, Number 5, November, December, 2002 p.19]...
“Pornography, incest, premarital sex as well as homosexuality are destructive to families and individuals.” “We are not homophobic and we do not hate homosexuals; on the contrary we want what is best for them. That is why we must oppose the radical gay agenda that has been attempting to ‘normalize’ homosexual behavior since the early 1970’s.”
The paper, entitled "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," was compiled by Dr. Timothy Daily, a senior fellow for Culture Studies at Family Research Council. Peter Sprigg, senior director of Culture Studies, concludes there is a definite link between homosexuality and child molestation. He points out the vast majority of child molesters are male, and one-third of the victims of molestation are young boys.
"You have a tiny percentage of the population -- male homosexuals, less than 3% of the male population -- committing a third of the acts of child sexual abuse," Sprigg says, "and that suggests a much higher prevalence of child sexual abuse among homosexuals than among heterosexuals."
Thanks, Kay. The positions of Sprigg and his organization are well known. He would say any of this stuff anywhere. His views are mainstream- at least now- and commend them.
You still haven't met the challenge and given us examples of Sprigg calling Jim a "nut" or "despicable". That's inflammatory demagoguery and typical of TTF.
CRC has no seat and that is what bothers you CRC anon the most. Why didn't you get nominated for your group to help them meet criteria?
PFOX/Sprigg did...CRC did not. Now whether PFOX represents community is another matter.
Jealousy of Jim for TTF having a seat has driven you into a frenzy.
Get over it!!!
CRC Anon--Third Group
Anon, it doesn't seem like you have been following this discussion very long, or paying much attention. Did you see this one?
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/07/on-calling-nut-nut.html
JimK
Kay
As I've told you, I'm not jealous of anybody. To recap, a journalist reporting about the new committee provided readers with some background on the statements made by Jim Kennedy about another committee member. He has complained that the journalist is unfair (although the quotes were competely accurate). Then you, for some reason, decided to jump in and say that Sprigg is just as bad as Jim. I noted that Sprigg had too much class to resort to this kind of name-calling and gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong. Now, your starting to do something that seems like ranting to me. Can you back up your claim about Sprigg?
"Anon, it doesn't seem like you have been following this discussion very long, or paying much attention. Did you see this one?
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/07/on-calling-nut-nut.html
JimK"
I read it, Jim. You were trying to justify your lack of discretion. Anything else I'm missing?
CRC anon said,
"Then you, for some reason, decided to jump in and say that Sprigg is just as bad as Jim. I noted that Sprigg had too much class to resort to this kind of name-calling and gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong."
***************
CRC Anon you lied or let's use the word misconstrued. Sprigg is in a bad league of his own along with Dobson/PFOX and company like CRC.
Jim's higher level of decency and fairness precludes Sprigg.
Sprigg lives and breaths promoting negativity toward homosexuals just like CRC does. That is not class as you think or maybe you do think that. Class to you equals being negative/hateful toward homosexuals it seems.
You CRC anon promote negativity toward Jim because he has a CAC seat and CRC does not.
Jim provided you the link to what was actually said..read it.
Here's a simple question: what makes you think the students will believe everything that is taught to them from this curriculum?
Possible answers:
1. Teenagers are impressionable and gullible enough to take everything at face value.
2. Teenagers ignore news, so they won't know anything different.
3. Upon its release the curriculum will be believed by the students to have been revised and corrected numerous timess to ensure accuracy.
I'm only a couple of years older than the students this curriculum is aimed at. I live in the UK, yet I've managed to follow the developments of this curriculum since the beginning of January. The sex-education I received here mentioned almost nothing about homosexuality, and when it did I learned nothing new. I knew far more than what was taught due to my own research which was far more informative than a single curriculum could ever be.
UK-Anon, I suppose you are not the same Anon who's been entertaining himself here recently? Since you say you've been following this situation, should I presume that you have clicked on the curriculum links on the righthand side of this page, and read what was going to taught? If so, then you will have noticed that there was almost nothing about homosexuality. In the present curriculum there is, literally, nothing; they were going to mention it, which triggered a self-righteous outburst from the wackos (as the Republican Party calls them).
I think Dana summarizes my view, too. Life isn't about gay people, but there are some, and it doesn't hurt anything to know what's up with them, and to treat them with whatever respect they deserve. There is certainly no justification for being mean to them because of the way they are.
JimK
That is basically my view on things too.
I do have the same question as the other Anon though: does the new curriculum teach that the causes of homosexuality have not been clearly identified? That is a fact too.
The trouble with including too many viewpoints is the likelihood of completely confusing students to the extent where there will simply be mass debates.
Here is CRC Anon Third Group's "journalist.."
Anonymous said...Previous posted on blog)
From Jon Ward (February 2005)of Washington Times sent to Ellen C of Recall (CRC)
************************
Time for some research?
Here's Jon Ward's email to me today. I put it out for anyone with the time:
(I had asked why they didn't refer to Throckmoron as Dr.)
We only refer to people as Dr. if they are medical doctors.
By the way, if you already haven't, do some research on a couple things.
What's happening in MoCo started with 50 years ago with Kinsey, of course.
Two of his pals started Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information
and Education Caucus of the United States), and the ideology extended then
into GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), who has started their
own caucus within the NEA.
I may be telling you things you already know, but check out the connections
between GLSEN and the NEA.
Best
Jon (Ward)
Text
[Date=02-11-2005] Name:Ellen ellenmc7(Blank), [Msgid=779956]
Jon Ward's comments
I think we need to get others on the CRC email to assist with this kind of stuff. Can you(Ellen) do a "blast" to the rest of the folks that have showed up at general meetings and done nothing else? This may be a way to spread the wealth and let others feel some ownership in our work.
Michelle (Turner)
July 24, 2005 8:10 PM
JimK said...
Excuse me, Anon, can you fill us in a little bit here? I can't quite tell what's what here. Is this Jon Ward, the reporter for the Washington Times, collaborating with the group he is covering?
Jim
July 24, 2005 8:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Appears so......As we all know Jon Ward of the Washington Times is included in private emails from the President of CRC relating to things such as:
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:08 PM
Subject: FW: Ten Commandments
I did not know this. Did you?
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why there is such a mess about having the Ten Commandments on display or "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!
Wonder if some would say that is a conflict for Jon Ward?
CRC Anon Third Group said, " I'm not going to gossip- I'm going to show the actual statements made by Jim. The committee (which isn't the teacher) needs to know about the ugliness that they're dealing with."
Jealousy showing again over the CAC seat CRC does not have. The fixation over Jim is just bullying which is what kids that are gay face everyday in schools from folks like CRC Anon Third Group and the kids they teach that behavior to.
Go ahead and make sure it is taped.
I see after I went out shopping yesterday afternoon there's was a lot of activity here. Didn't read it all but did see this from Dana:
"What we do know is a)one's sexual identity, being male or female, is inborn, b) one's sexual orientation, similarly, is likely to be predominantly inborn, c) one can choose whatever behavior one desires, but one cannot choose one's feelings, and d) Freudian and Freudian-like notions that family dynamics determines sexual identity and sexual orientation are false."
These assertions are actually not proven. Dana has a dubious grasp of science and her papers are widely dismissed by other scientists.
Also, it's sad that Kay can't defend Jim's lack of civility other than to attack me. He's called a fellow member of the CAC a number of names and this person has notably not responded. Jim should give him an apology if he wants to be taken seriously. But that's just me being a big bully.
Anyway, no more comments from me until after the holidays. Whatever you celebrate, here's hoping you and your families know joy. And here's my Christmas present for all you TTFers. A tip:
Don't just mutate....evolve.
Jim writes,
The third group believes a conspiracy exists, where some people want to be treated with respect. This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.
To which Anonymous replies,
This is a bigoted lie. Who has suggested "punishing and abusing homosexuals"?
And my "two cents"? Well, I think calling someone a "bigoted" liar is unfair, uncharitable and not particularly helpful in furthering discussion...which I assume is the purpose of this forum. I do think Jim, Dana, and others that support Teach the Facts are unfamiliar with groups like Focus on the Family. I would like to think that a little familiarity with what Focus on the Family actually says and does might soften the all too often harsh assessment of those that are on the other side of the political spectrum. Then again, maybe not...
Permit me to explain...
Earlier this year my wife had to present a lesson to the ladies of her church; the lesson was on the dangers of pornography. I looked over the resources provided to her by her church and quickly came to the conclusion that they would not only be insufficient, but would not help those in need. I went to a subsite of Focus on the Family called PureIntimacy.org, and in short order found all of the resources needed to help present a lesson that would heal and help those in need.
What I found remarkable was the lack of hell, fire or brimestone in any of the writings. In fact, what I found was an approach that was...well...progressive. It seem to me that the primary focus was to heal the individual addicted to pornography first thru intensive counseling and therapy. Then once that is under way, to encourage the individual to seek spiritual healing. What I did not find any of was an extra heaping of guilt.
Need another example?
Ok, one more...the religion I grew up in was especially good at loading on the guilt with regard to masturbation. Once, while at the Focus on the Family website I wondered what advice or counsel they would have on the subject. I went to,
http://www.family.org
and using the search funtion, typed in "masturbation". Check it out...I am not sure about any of you, but what Dobson wrote with regards to this subject was downright refreshing after what I grew up with as a hormone raging teenager. And make no mistake, Dobson realized that his rather progressive advice would be controversial among the same religious crowd that often looks to him for advice, "Well, those are my views, for what they are worth. I know my recommendations will be inflammatory to some people. If you are one of them, please forgive me. I can only offer the best advice of which I'm capable. I pray that in this instance, I am right."
My preference is to assume that someone holding a harsh opinion about abstinence, Dobson, the Catholic faith, or any other similar topic is simply misinformed and only needs more information.
Will this change your mind?
Probably...maybe...who knows?
I know that because I have made a habit of talking to people with different opinions than my own over the course of many year now I understand that reasonable people often will disagree. In the past, when I have heard religious people demonize gays and lesbians I have spoken up in defense of their right to respect, dignity and to be left alone to live their lives.
Again, Jim,
This group feels that social norms need to be enforced with punishment and abuse, and they feel somehow authorized to dish it out.
Since this charge is a tad vague, I do wonder what exactly it has in mind. I could assume that it might be a nod to the debate about same-sex marriage now raging across the American political landscape (in fact, it appears that it is expected to be THE hot topic of next years election...right next to the national campaign to demonize and defeat my member of Congress, Marilyn Musgrave). If that is the case then I have a ready answer...
The debate over homosexual "marriage" is a debate about the nature of marriage. What advocates on behalf of same-sex marriage are attempting to do is radically redefine what marriage means for American society (indeed redefine what it has meant for a long time). And this is being attempted thru the least democratic branch of government, the Judiciary, on the basis that same-sex marriage is a civil right (in an ironic twist of history, the LDS Church is now opposing same-sex marriage with the same fervor they once reserved for defending their religious right to practice polygamy).
Without getting too long winded here...yes, there are social norms and someone needs to enforce them. I distinctly recall in the early days of HIV/AIDS that gay bathouses were defended as a component of "gay culture". It took the final realization of the apocalyptic specter of annihilation of gays via AIDS for them to at last cooperate with public health officials in closing the bathhouses.
Absent norms and enforcement of those norms, American society will become a free for all where the weakest and most vulnerable are place at greatest risk.
As I do not know what time I will have of my own in the next week with the time off that I have, I wish to bid you all,
HAPPY HOLIDAYS,
and a healthy New Year (since with one's health just about anything can be accomplished).
Be well,
Orin Ryssman
Fort Collins, CO
CRC Anon Third Group...
Amazing that you come into our backyard to sling poop and then take offense to people stopping you.
We do not agree with you period. You already know that...no surprise there. Jim is a big boy if he needs to apologize for anything in his life he can make that decision don't you think? But if you think it will be about Sprigg and his hatefulness toward homosexuals..won't happen. Why should it... just because you say so..???
Get real...and get back over to your CRC Thrid Group where like kind think on same page with bigotry, hate, and intolerance.
You will be happier there and that third group will agree with you all the time.
Read:
Nazi Persecution of the Churches by J.S.Conway
The book discusses Hitler's attitude about the Christian church and how he tried to destroy it.
If you're saying the guy has denied the Holocaust or is secretly serving those who have, let's see your proof. From your past comments, my guess is that you've seen one of these groups quote something from him and now your saying he's "writing" for them.
more from Brian Ladd's review of the volume, The Third Reich in Power, 1933-39:
"He places Nazi anti-Semitism in the context of the Reich's broader ambitions for racial purity, which justified the persecution of homosexuals, the disabled and Gypsies, among others. But he argues that no twisted logic of pseudoscientific eugenics can explain the Nazis' obsession with the Jews."
Ladd seems to understand that Darwinian-inspired eugenics was the central rationale for the Nazis.
Jim
Unless Dana has requested that you delete her comment, I'd encourage you to put it back up. Let's keep a free exchange going here. The topic is important.
I haven't deleted anybody's comments.
JimK
oh, you're right- looks it was by author- never mind
Dana
I'm one of the few people in town who is busy today but I can see you wrote a long comment and will try to read and respond later tonight. I've got a feeling we're not that far apart- I just think you may go a bit overboard.
I don't know about the rest of you but I think it's improper for Jim to put a picture of himself at the first CAC meeting with this post.
Sorry. Meant to sign.
Bacchus Gigante (BG)
I wonder what he thinks is so funny?
jiminy cricket
Probably someone at the meeting said "underwear".
Bacchus
Post a Comment
<< Home