American Voices Free Speech Uncategorized

Threats to South Park’s Trey Parker and Matt Stone

South Park’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone
have receive death threats based on references to the prophet Muhammad who, in the cartoon, was dressed in a bear costume. (Well, actually the Muhammad was thought to be in the bear outfit. However, it turns out it is actually Santa. So Muhammad is never pictured on the series—disguised or otherwise. But no matter.)

The LA Times (among others) has the story:

In its 200 shows, the irreverent animated program “South Park” has mercilessly satirized Christianity, Buddhism, Scientology, the blind and disabled, gay people, Hollywood celebrities and politicians of all persuasions, weathering the resulting protests and threats of boycotts.

But this week, after an ominous threat from a radical Muslim website, the network that airs the program bleeped out all references to the prophet Muhammad in the second of two episodes set to feature the holy figure dressed in a bear costume. The incident provides the latest example that media conglomerates are still struggling to balance free speech with safety concerns and religious sensitivities, six years after Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was slain for making a film critical of Islamic society.

Comedy Central declined to comment on the latest incident. But “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone clearly disagreed with their bosses’ handling of the situation. A statement posted on their website said that executives “made a determination to alter the episode” without their approval and that the usual wrap-up speech from one character didn’t mention Muhammad “but it got bleeped too.”

The network may have thought it had no choice after, the website of a fringe group, delivered a grim warning about last week’s episode, which depicted Muhammad dressed as a bear….

(Again, it turns out not to be Muhammad at all.)

On the site Matt and Tray were warned that “what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show.” A photo of Van Gogh’s body was posted along with the written threat.

May Trey and Matt—and their gross and glorious comedy work—stay safe from any kind of harm. And may those who would make such threats find tolerance.

Here is what Aziz Poonawalla, blogger and Muslim, said about the controversy, and the threats, on Beliefnet.

Some Poonawalla clips:

Most other blogs and news sites are not providing a link to – which appears to have been hacked, possibly by angry fans of the show – but I think it’s important to let these idiots know that they are being critiqued. And my critique of them is much the same as my critique of Anwar al-Awlaki: they are cowards, who seek to gain publicity for themselves.


In fact, it is precisely the over-reaction of extremist muslims who wave around threats of violence that leads to more depictions and insults to the Prophet, not less. The right way to inculcate respect for the Prophet among non-muslims is not to act like a barbarian but to simply express ourselves and explain our beliefs – and then excercise our own right, to walk away. It is by their own actions, supposedly in “defense” of the Prophet, that these extremists actually cause greater offense to the Prophet’s legacy than any mere cartoon…


This was not posted last night, but here is what Jon Stewart had to say about the situation:

PS: For the record, I would appreciate it if CNN-–which has been bordering on the provocative and overly sensational in its coverage of this loathsome incident—would focus an equally harsh eye on those who suggest and provoke violence in the direction of political figures with whom they disagree.

PPS: Also, for the record: I love South Park.


  • Wow! This from “a religion of peace?” Of peace??! Where are all the leaders of that “religion of peace” that should be condemning threats and attacks against innocent people, against Westerners, against Jews…? Why, if Islamic leadership doesn’t support Islamic terrorism, where are they? Are they running themselves?

    “He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah’s cause” — Muhammad, prophet of Islam

    Answering Muslims

    So the network’s decision was to submit to threats and intimidation, which will have two effects. First, Muslims worldwide will once again find out that they can prevent criticism of Islam by simply threatening to slaughter people. In other words, Comedy Central is encouraging other Muslims to respond with violence. Second, Revolution Muslim, a group that recruits Jihadists in the United States, just gained a great deal of respect from young Muslims looking to join a Jihadist group. Revolution Muslim has now single-handedly stopped a campaign of criticism against Muhammad, and has caused networks to self-censor even more than they were already doing. I can guarantee that Revolution Muslim’s membership will increase as a result of their success (a success granted to them by Comedy Central).

    It sure is working.

    And, I wonder why Obama stays silent on Islamic terrorism. Oh, wait! He has officially stripped “Islamic” from any mention of terrorism and even has renamed terrorism to man-caused disasters. It even encourages more terrorism when the President refuses to acknowledge the source of it.

  • About The Religion of Peace is a non-partisan and pluralistic site concerned with Islam’s true political and cultural teachings according to its own texts. We are not associated with nor funded by any organization.
    Here is why we exist:

    On 9/11, nineteen devout Muslims believed they had a religious mandate to fly planes into buildings and slaughter thousands of innocent people.

    The Muslim world erupted with outrage over this horrible act of mass murder. Massive demonstrations were held in nearly every Muslim country and Western city. At these demonstrations, Muslim leaders harshly denounced Islamic terror and shared the many hundreds of verses from the Qur’an that encourage universal brotherhood, peace and tolerance. A slew of fatwas and clerical condemnations against terror soon followed.

    Tens of millions of ordinary Muslims also reacted by rallying against violence and demanding that their leaders root out and eliminate the Islamic terrorists and their supporters. These same Muslims and their clerics called for introspection and atonement, accepting the role that the radical elements of their religion played in the attacks, and committing themselves to combating and eradicating the misinterpretation of their religion – the Religion of Peace…

    Well, not quite.

    Obviously this didn’t happen. If it had, then Islamic terror would have ended, 9/11 would have been a singular event, and this website would not exist.

    Unfortunately, the optimistic and fictitious picture that we just painted of Muslim reaction to terror and the predominance of peaceful Qur’anic verses could not be any further from the truth. In fact, some Muslims actually celebrated the attacks, and not just overseas, but even in the offices of the U.S. State Department.

    ….There is something deeply, deeply wrong with Islam.

    …And so, our mission is to present the truth about Islam and how it is so tragically different from other religion, including its incompatibility with secularism and Western liberal values. We also hope to memorialize the victims of Islamic terror, and ensure that they do not die in obscurity as so many victims of Islam have in the last 1400 years.

    For those who swallow the falsehood that Islam is a Religion of Peace, we hope they will find enough reason to at least challenge their preconceptions. The information on this site concerning Islamic teachings comes straight from the most sacred texts of Islam: the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. ….

    It’s too bad that the Crusaders couldn’t finish the job.

  • Woody this is one of the vilest things you or anyone else has ever put up on this site.

    It is only because I know you and consider you a genuine long-time friend to me and to the site that I have not deleted this, but also blocked you from WitnessLA altogether.

    I am going to assume that this comment is a brief moment of ill-thought through foolish blurting, and that you will come to your senses and quickly take that kind of dangerous and destructive hatred back.

    I hesitated to put this post up at all because I worried that it might bring out this kind of terrible craziness.

    But I needed to call out the dangerous intolerance that caused the threats against Tray Parker and Matt Stone. Now you have displayed it yourself, yet—unlike the creeps who threatened Parker and Stone—you have wished death on a huge portion of the world’s population—including some of my friends, some of my students, many, many of our fellow countrymen and women.

    Talk like this starts wars, creates tragedies.

    The only reason I’m leaving your comment up is as a warning to anyone else.

    Anything else of this nature—from you or anyone else—any attempt to justify or defend it—will be deleted with extreme prejudice.

    I am deeply saddened that we are having this conversation at all. I know you to be a far, far better person than this bad and unwise moment.

    Feel free to send me a private email and I’ll take every comment here down and we can simply start over.

  • Just so everyone knows, you deleted my responses which state that you and Mavis, in your typical liberal knee-jerk fashion, overreacted rather than understanding my intent. It’s just so typical of the left trying to villify those who want to defend our nation while worrying about the feelings of those who attack us and others in their religion who stay silent.

    You have some kind of responsibility, Celeste, not to let yours and Mavis’s fales accusations stand without correction by me, but I don’t even know if this one will stick.

  • Celeste, that Aziz Poonawalla link is an excellent one. When I read a couple days ago about the threats, and then last night about the censoring, I got angry. So it’s encouraging to read columns like Poonawalla’s, particularly when he says things like this:

    “The right way to inculcate respect for the Prophet among non-muslims is not to act like a barbarian but to simply express ourselves and explain our beliefs – and then exercise our own right, to walk away. It is by their own actions, supposedly in “defense” of the Prophet, that these extremists actually cause greater offense to the Prophet’s legacy than any mere cartoon. After all, the Prophet SAW is judged by non-muslims solely by the behavior of those who profess to follow him”

    I hope Parker and Stone just get back on the horse and do it again: don’t let censorship win.

  • Okay, Woody. One explanation and one explanation only. And I won’t delete it—but only as long as it doesn’t compound the problem and the hatred. But then nothing more in this vein. At all. Ever.

    “It’s too bad that the Crusaders couldn’t finish the job.” has no place on this or any other site. It’s hate speech, pure and simple. And any generalizations you make about muslims or the Muslim religion will be deleted without discussion.

    (I would do the same for any who direct hate speech against any other religion.)

    Walt, thanks for actually posting some of Poonawalla’s words. I’m going to add them to the post, which I should have done last night.

  • Jon Stewart weighs in:

    “I say this to anyone who’s threatening death in the name of religion or politics,” Stewart concluded, standing in front of a gospel choir for the second time this week, before offering his now-trademark bleeped-out sign-off, which begins with “Go” and ends with “yourselves.”

  • Okay, Celeste, besides people on the left being knee-jerk, there are other possible explanations here.

    First, we have to determine what were the objectives of the crusades, because that is what I referenced and what Mavis interpreted. Were they for defense or for the extermination of Muslims, as Mavis contends with his claim? Here’s your answer.

    The Crusades

    By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

    In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam.

    Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered.

    The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian.

    Okay, did we see anything about the purpose of the Crusades as genocide against the Muslims? No.

    The Crusades were defensive against the Muslim invasion, intended to reclaim land that had been overrun, and to discourage future attacks. Genocide was never a purpose.

    Okay, so why was I accused of favoring killing all Muslims, if that wasn’t the goal of the crusades that Mavis used as “proof” for his claim? Possible answers:

    A. Mavis engages in hyperbole.
    B. Mavis is stupid.
    C. Mavis thinks that I’m stupid.
    D. Celeste is gullible and thinks that I’m stupid.
    E. I am stupid.
    F. B & D Only
    G. E, but only for trying to discuss something with stupid liberals
    H. B, D, and G Only

    Answer: H

    If you think that defending yourself against Muslim terror and ending that terror is the same as genocide, then you better have a talk with Obama, as that’s what he’s supposed to be doing in Afghanistan.

    OH, NO!!! Obama wants to kill all Muslims!! At least, let’s hope that Obama finishes the real work over there.

  • Walt, I gave Woody his one shot. All else of this nature will be deleted.

    And, it’s not Mavis who is the most furious about the posts, it’s me. So I can only assume that every name that Woody calls Mavis, is really directed at me.

    Now I hope that an adult discussion can ensure. (I saw Jon Stewart last night, but there was no link at that time. His commentary is linked now from the post. He was excellent.)

  • Note to those who wondered why it took me a while to delete comments: Amazingly enough I actually have one or two other things to do in addition to monitoring the playground.

  • Stewart had it right even down to his description of Fox, Goldberg and those he sees as his “rivals”, among other things.

    But Assad (?) summed the threats up even better when he said, “Its all so 12th Century”.

    That’s the mindset of Revolution Muslim and Radical Islam, and considering numbers alone that believe in that type of reaction when offended religiously or politically, not any other religion.

  • What do I do all day? You mean besides viciously deleting other people’s comments?

    Well, Friday I read most of three different books and thought up questions to ask their authors for the book panel I’m moderating on Saturday at the LAT Fest. of Books. And I also got my hair trimmed so I wouldn’t look like a sheepdog on said panel. And I answered a bunch of students’ questions about their final projects. And I picked up more dog food, as I was running low. And I went to the LA Times Book Awards and chatted afterward with a bunch of book authors, most of whom looked slightly disoriented to be dressed up and out of their houses.

    At the book awards party I also chatted with two of the people from my literary agent’s office, both of whom said they were kinda wondering when I would have my book manuscript to them.

    I told them I wasn’t really sure since right now my time was kept pretty full deleting blog comments and everything.

  • From a man who looks much like a sheepdog, I’ll let your comment stand, but only this once. Anymore references to “that” I’ll delete from my consciousness. Loup-Loup and I both are grateful that you’ve replenished the larder.
    Have a wonderful, creative, and insightful Saturday, Celeste.

  • What do your Muslim friends have to say about this, Celeste? What do they advise? Do they see reality as being that nothing can change and that free speech is hostage to Islamic death threats or do they think that this will blow over and that others should have no fear of Muslim attacks, in which case they are willing to publicly condemn the threats themselves?

    I think that Islamic terrorism is a greater threat to the West than the KKK was a threat to blacks.

  • It’s obvious Woody’s last sentence was meant to fan the flames. I really see no need to enhance what’s already a dire situation. Our host has muffled what really needs to be discussed here or elsewhere. I personally liked religion when it was kept in the vestibule, and could be applied voluntarily like a hair shirt! Also it might be noted that rarely is torture (Gitmo excepted) used for any reason other than the furthering of religious dogma or zealotry. I like to view the world through my Groucho Marx glasses, but the fanatics, be they Muslim fundamentalists,perverted Catholic priests and their cover-up hierarchy, or the everyday bible-beater looking for some self gratifying “altar call” make it tough to share some give and take humor. They really all need to chill.
    The threat to South Park’s writers really seems to be out of the park. Almost as funny as that Somali in his flammable underwear or Richard Reid trying to light his foot on fire. Allah aint going anywhere/ God’s still in his Heaven. All these panic stricken humanoids need to get a grip. Have a nice day.

  • Celeste: What do I do all day? …book awards party ..literary agent’s office – my time was kept pretty full deleting blog comments

    Do book award parties = cocktail parties?

    So, does your agent have a problem with that? Have him call me.

  • Woody, you must not be up on how rampant overreaction and political grandstanding is today. A bunch of knuckleheads threatened Tray and Matt. BFD. They get threats all the time.

  • Hackers recently responded by temporarily re-directing traffic from the revolution muslim site to a site similar in name but rather, uh, different in theme:

    I’m all for it–good on them. These folks are despicable, though I’m sure they’re loving the attention. Here’s one way that “Mohammed” of the NY-based group refers to Westerners:

    “Darwinist faggots who are as despicable as the rest, walking around eating your Triscuits.”

    The irony, of course, is that this is the same type of beliefs and “arguments” that the extremist Christian right maintains. Pathetic.

    (That Triscuit part is just odd, though. As a Westerner, I myself prefer Breton crackers.)

  • ‘Question Authority’? Dude, That’s sooo 2008

    Then: dissent=patriotic.
    Now: sedition.

    Then: opposition to Bush=principled and civilized.
    Now: opposition to Obama=opposition to the very nature of civilization itself.

    …The left’s amnesia over eight years of anti-Bush rhetoric is one thing; their willful contortion of tea party ideas is quite another.

    …Anyone who describes himself as a “Christian” and a “Patriot” is probably a “Christian Patriot,” which means they probably stay up nights discussing fertilizer bombs via ham radio with Aryan Nation cells in Idaho. Or, writing lesson plans for Sunday school about how marriage should really be about a man and a woman. Six of one, half dozen, etc.

    In other words: Protest is fine, as long as the cast of characters and the content of their chants reminds people of the ’60s. ….

  • It’s the mad conservatives we need to be watching, Woody. Again, if Bush could do his job, our last attack on the mainland thanks to Islamic terrorism is in 1993. Right wing extremists, because of the lack of attention being paid to them, are a bigger threat than Islamic terrorism. Extreme right wing hate groups will strike America before any Islamic terrorist organization will again. Print that.

  • From what I’ve seen, most of the Tea Partiers are older people who were raised with strict values and love for our nation. They don’t look dangerous to me.

  • During a Saturday afternoon protest I laid under LBJ’s limo at the Mark Hopkins hotel in SF mid 60s. I can speak with impunity that the radiator had a slow leak around the bottom hose as it permanently stained my daishiki. Today I can only drop my gaze when my generation’s tea partiers do their thing. I’m ashamed that we’ve lost so much of our zeal, that our demonstrations lack any creativity, and that we’re only now a shadow of the trailblazers we once were. Maybe Commmisar Obama needs to reinstitute the draft so a new crew of young turks can ditch their cell phones and make some noise. Campaign slogans and platitudes aside we’ve become a nation of individuals with self interest and personal gain our only objective.

    Note to the Libs in the room: You need to know that causes are not set in stone, that they tend to waffle and blur when you have your Groucho Marx glasses firmly set on your nose.

  • SF, it’s the tea baggers who need to start going out. A lot of them haven’t been out since the drive ins stopped playing Smokey and the Bandit II.

  • GJ, what do your neighbors think when you sport the dashiki while your overalls are on the clothesline?

  • GJ, what do your neighbors think when you sport the dashiki while your overalls are on the clothesline?

    You’ve denigrated my choice to occasionally wear overalls at several junctures, RT. I’ve found them to be ideal work wear when milking the cows, feeding my chickens, swathing alfalfa, or pushing the grandaughter on the swing. They don’t migrate south, and render sound frontal protection when my sheepdog shakes after wallowing with the hogs. The daishiki I retain for special events. Thanks for your interest.

  • I was kidding, GJ. Dashikis rock. I wore one to jury duty once, hoping to get booted. The judge complimented it, and asked if I got it at a Dead concert. What a long strange trip, eh?

  • Celeste, you have been more than patient with that racist ass, Woody. If you haven’t already, comment #38 should seal it. Ban him.

  • I wear a business suit to jury duty. Defense attorneys don’t like businessmen on their juries, so I never get picked. As a precaution, I also take some of my comments about justice from this site to show them.

  • Hey Kevin, Rob’s post #28 is worse, give me a break. Want to ban him as well as he’s by far the board leader in hate speech?

  • I have been out from morning until night all weekend so am just now reading some of the comments. Don’t have time to go through them all.

    SureFire and Kevin, thank you for flagging those two comments. They’re gone now.

    ATQ, thank you for your restraint.

    I’m getting perilously close to shutting down comments altogether. I hate to do it. And I will likely start them up some time in the future if I do. Because I believe that comments have an important place in creating dialogue and community.

    But, while it’s a little better, too often here the crap still highjacks the dialogue. And I’m not particularly interested in continuing to try to regulate it.

    If I’d wanted to be a cop I’d have gone to the academy and at least gotten myself a cool sidearm and a pension plan.

  • Shut your comments down, Celeste. I’d be cool with it. I’d be perfectly fine with only getting your take on things here. This is your blog. And most of my comments are just in response to right wing trolls misrepresenting your views and the overall message of this blog. No comments = No Sure Fire with his shrill insults toward any remote question of law enforcement policy, Woody and his CONSTANT sexist, racist, and homophobic comments, Answering the Question with his shifty, sarcastic baiting, WTF with his annoying attempts at turning every single thread into a discussion about violence below the border. Since you refuse to ban these people when they are clearly here to disrupt your blog and distort your message, Celeste, I’d say you shutting down the comments is the next best thing. Like I said, I really only come here for your views anyway.

  • Celeste, you’re so afraid of criticism and accusations of not being politically correct that you automatically do what other liberals demand. Rather than deleting comments, advise that whiny liberals grow thicker skins.

  • 43.RobThomas Says:
    April 26th, 2010 at 12:33 am
    Hating white people isn’t the same as hating minorities.

    Doesn’t the above post and what I pasted here kind of say it all Celeste? Rob is attempting to get you to shut down comments so people who don’t think like him won’t be heard. It’s as simple as that. Is that the type of site you want? I don’t think so. That he can say he only comes here for your views is ridiculous considering how often he posts and what he says.

    Rob is on the very far left edge of thought, way beyond you or anyone rational and if you shut down comments he wins, and you and free speech lose. It will be interesting to see how you handle someone who wants to limit free speech on a social justice website.

  • By the way Celeste, I became a cop to fuck with bad guys and bullies, put them in jail when that was needed and the pension, which was minimal when I started, was a bonus that got bigger over the years.

    I’m not a big gun nut, never have been.

  • Woody, aren’t you being a bit dramatic when you say you won’t “be heard” if Celeste shuts down the comments section? Is it really that serious? You have your own blog, don’t you? Well then, you’re being heard. That type of dramatic whining, along with the nonstop anger, racism, sexism, and homophobia out of you is exactly what this blog could do without. That’s why Celeste shutting down the comments section would be worth it, just for that alone. You’re right, I don’t want to hear what you have to day. You’ve said nothing that I haven’t heard before. I haven’t learned anything from you. You’re joist a megaphone of anger and noise and you add nothing to any discussion.

  • SureFire, I don’t know what the solution is. But what we have here isn’t it.

    I value and enjoy having voices like yours and others on the right and left that are different than mine.

    I do not intend to abandon that idea of a community forum, which I believe is important. but I may need to find a different structural form in that, as you can see, despite much pleading and threatening on my part, the food fights and the grandstanding continue.

    As for my cop remark, it wasn’t a slam. Far from it. It was meant to be slightly self-deprecating and also affectionate toward law enforcement. If I had a couple more lives to lead often I think I might have enjoyed leading one of them as a police officer. For real.

  • I didn’t see it as a slam at all Celeste. I worked in the auto industry prior to becoming a cop and was making more money. My wife being wise beyond her years had initiated a retirement fund for us soon after we were married so while my pension plan became greater as my years on the force rolled on, our continued use of alternate plans to save money augmented that.

    I agree with what you want on this blog but it’s always a battle between Rob and someone else isn’t it? Shouldn’t that be a clue to where the real problem lies here?

  • Long ago I suggested that if one were to not respond to the obvious political, racial, or social strata baiting that is carried out by a few individuals hereabouts there wouldn’t be all these personal conflicts. The blogmeister could get her feedback and a harmonious interchange could prevail. Speaking for myself, I have a place to vent my outrage as vile, ugly, and profane as I care to. I won’t do that here. Celeste’s blog WLA is somewhere I browse to read the LA haps and get her admitted Liberal slant on things. Where I as an occasional commenter stand politically is no one’s business. The comments are somewhere I’ll peruse now only to see who’s casting bait and who’s chomping it. Certain vocal visitors also have a tendency to identify, apply scorn, and condemn views which don’t align with their own. Does anyone else find that trait abhorrant?

  • My two cents. This comment board can be interesting again if two things occur:

    1) Stop the constant stupid soundbite slogans and excruciatingly boring empty generalizations. “You stupid liberals always believe… you dumb conservatives always think… ” blah, blah, fucking blah. It’s called trolling, it’s meant to be provocative (and nothing else), and always leads to a deteriorated thread. It’s safe to say that no one here is that simple or dense. I don’t give a flying fuck if you think Rob is “far left” or Woody is “far right”. Respond to a comment on the merits of its content, or shut the fuck up. Really: just shut the fuck up. Isn’t the default to not tap your fingers on your keyboard and share with the world your half-baked thoughts? If not, then you weren’t raised properly. Take your clicky fingers and instead scratch your head (or ass) for a better thought, or go weed your garden. Think before you speak, and ask whether it contributes anything besides empty generalizations or personal attacks. And about the latter…

    2) Stop the personal attacks. I know why some of them start, because I’ve been here a long-ass time (and in other places with the same cast of characters). Quite often they start because of above reason #1: someone (who will not be named) will start with an irritatingly banal and intentionally provocative comment. The purpose of it is to goad (this is the definition of trolling), and then when someone politely calls him on it he’ll play the PC or “you’re too sensitive” card. Someone less polite will realize (correctly) that the polite approach is going nowhere, that the troll is trolling, and will commence with a verbal assault. Interestingly, these verbal assaults are the inverse of the original trolling comments: the troll is provocatively vapid without direct personal attacks, while the take-no-shit respondent makes good arguments unfortunately bogged down by personal attacks. The result, of course, is that the floodgates open to more personal attacks, and the thread becomes unreadable.

    tl;dr version: 1) Stop the unproductive trollish (intentionally or not) irritating generalizations; 2) stop the personal attacks.

    And for those of you too lazy to read the tl;dr version, it’s safest to just do the following: shut your damn piehole. Seriously.

  • I know that I don’t make unproductive trollish comments, intentionally or not, so whoever it doing that should stop.

    Tomás, I really do agree with you. All of this needs to be reeled in and toned down. As I just said on another thread, give me your positions with reasons rather than call me names for mine. Then, we can have a conversation.

    I told Celeste that I would cooperate.

Leave a Comment