The censored posts [Archive]

Barry

05-13-2007, 05:20 PM

I censored a couple of posts the other day which is something I rarely do. I found them offensive, disrespectful and childish. I removed them in order to maintain the high level of discussion found here and to not offend any of our readers. The first post is discussed below. The second post was:
The bible is good to have around when you run out of toilet paper.Users who are subscribed for individual email updates were sent a copy of the post before it was removed, including Dixon. Dixon responded publicly (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=29705#post29705) to the post which raised the curiosity of another member who initiated a private email exchange with Edward, the author of the censored posts. His reply is below. So here you go for those of you who were curious. Your comments are welcome.

Barry

-- From Edward --
While I normally like to have this kind of discussion online (so that
everyone can contribute their 2 cents--and this is very important for
creating a public forum and therefore public participation and
enlightenment) I'll have to make the exception. What we can do, if you
are willing to, is to have this email exchange posted afterwards to
Wacco Talk with the controversial phrase deleted. That would satisfy my
strong preference for public dialog and at the same time satisfy the
censorship requirements of the Wacco List (Barry Chertov).
[I have included the post in the context of this discussion -B]

The first post that was deleted was something along the lines of:

I know exactly what's on God's/Christ's mind because he licks my ass clean everyday.

His mother, Mary, is just a horny gutter slut (which is really how she got preggo).
[corrected for accuracy -B]
That is very nearly what I posted to the list, to the best of my
recollection because I just wrote this from memory.

The purpose of my post was purely provocative in order to "lance"
religious fervor among some people in the list, not that I have any
particular people in mind but because there is always a group of very
religious people anywhere, and in part, those are the ones I was
targeting. But the purpose was also to put a dent into the collective
religious ego and to spark heated controversy in the most shocking but
productive sense. This is not controversy for the sake of controversy,
but an attempt to challenge the intellectual and emotional sensibilities
of the concept of religion in each of us, religious or not.

Why? Well, the list of reasons is so long I don't know where to begin.
For instance, the political agenda generated from religious premises is
a good start. For example, the issues of abortion, torture, the death
penalty, the Patriot Acts (and the general violation of citizens'
Constitutional rights), the war in Iraq, etc, etc, etc.

Although trying to debate each and every one of these issues
individually, one by one, is not a complete waste of time, what I would
like to do is lunge a spear into the middle of the main source of all of
this destructive public and foreign policy and just generally bad
thinking; in other words, society's religious fanaticism. After all,
even though I don't believe in god, I also have an opinion and I also
have rights. My Constitutional and inalienable rights are being trampled
upon ruthlessly and I am in the company of not only millions of citizens
in this U.S. but also billions of other human beings around the world,
including 650,000 dead Iraqi men, women, and children. It's desperately
frustrating to live in a country of 300 million people whereas the great
majority not only have a bullheaded, blind faith in something absurd
that doesn't even exist but are totally bent on making me and everyone
else live the way they think we should through legislation, court
appointees, elected and selected political leaders, and other methods.

My grossly insulting comments are deliberate. They are meant to be
frontal, aggressive attacks on this religious fanaticism that is the
source of the current administration's religious fundamentalist public
policy making and many other social sores.

By the way, I don't have anything against sluts. I know a few and they
are really cool people, myself among them. If it wasn't for sluts, a lot
less people would be getting laid. We owe sluts a huge debt of
gratitude. I am sorry for using the term pejoratively and if I had to
post the same message again I would take out the word "slut." I was
trying to be as offensive as possible to people's religious
sensibilities, also being that they are the same folks who think that
sluts are a bad thing.

So I would very much appreciate your posting this message to Wacco Talk
along with your sincere response, with the only the piece between the
quotation marks deleted from it. As a matter of fact, leave the
quotation marks with three elisions between them: "..."

Thank you, sincerely,

Edward

GiGi

05-13-2007, 06:20 PM

ThePhiant got banned for a lot less

I censored a couple of posts the other day which is something I rarely do. ...

nurturetruth

05-13-2007, 06:52 PM

then perhaps censoring, editing and deleting is a better system to empower conscious co-existing community...rather than condemning or banning?

in any case, I was the one who privately emailed Edward requesting more clarification in what he calls his, "grossly insulting comments"...which "were deliberate".

Since the posting was deleted ) before I had a chance to read it.. i just HAD to know!

I noticed that IT IS POSSIBLE for one to make a gross insulting deliberate comment (pertaining to our current administration...even though it sounded religious..it was tied into his political feelings ...and his insulting comments were NOT directed "TO" another member from this community. it was casually a statement...and childish....) and not get banned.

to be accepted "as is" for "that moment".

moments later... an opening opportunity came through which allowed Edward to further explain AND take responsibility for his re-actions and intentions. and to clarify his energy....

so perhaps this "censored comments' is a place for a good home for all censored comments to have...so it gives an opening for "defiance" or "sarcasm/cynical child like comments"...to take responsibility and further clarify intention...

and other members wont have to read the censored comments if they get offended easily...

good luck to all!

thanks edward, barry, gigi and rest of my reflections! :heart:

EDWARD WROTE:
"But the purpose was also to put a dent into the collective
religious ego and to spark heated controversy in the most shocking but
productive sense. This is not controversy for the sake of controversy,
but an attempt to challenge the intellectual and emotional sensibilities
of the concept of religion in each of us, religious or not.

My grossly insulting comments are deliberate. They are meant to be
frontal, aggressive attacks on this religious fanaticism that is the
source of the current administration's religious fundamentalist public
policy making and many other social sores.

ThePhiant got banned for a lot less

lifequest

05-13-2007, 07:25 PM

On occasion there have been provocative comments made regarding organized religion which appear designed to either salve wounds from prior negative experiences or as an egoistic indulgence. There is no longer any taboo regarding the subject of religion and it doesn't really bother me to see someone go off.

But it does diminish the sense of community the board is intended to promote and the environment seems a little less civil each time. If this extended to other topics as well, I'd probably stop visiting as much.

So this would be a mild approval of the decision to delete if comments are especially insulting or hurtful to individuals or groups.

Zeno Swijtink

05-13-2007, 11:12 PM

As J. S. Mill argued, freedom of speech is possibly only limited by the Principle of Harm.

"[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

Would there be anybody harmed by this posting? It's not a personal attack, it may be offensive to some, but nobody is required to read it.

It's not enough to post the offending passage and depend on the feelings of disgust among the populous.

On the basis of what principle was this censored? What harm to another human being would have been caused by this posting?

Tars

05-14-2007, 08:10 AM

Free expression is what these boards are all about. It's why people visit and participate, so they can take part in that process, whether it's speaking out, or just reading the opinions of others.

Kudos to anyone who makes the huge effort, and sacrifice of personal time necessary to produce a good forum. Special kudos to anyone who does it for public service rather than personal profit, but that's another topic.

When it is only one person, whomever it is, however decent they are personally, who alone decides what is appropriate to say, and what isn't, it most-often ends up being seen as too-restrictive by many. The sense of community is restricted, and the forum board sputters along.

If one wants to have only their own sensibilities presented, then they should publish a personal blog, not present a public forum.

On the other hand, there are entities who obviously have emotional problems, which are evident whenever they post. The negativity of their posts destroys the enjoyment others have in participating in those public forums.

Many forums around the net have minimized this effect by having a different moderator for each individual forum. There is almost always a surplus of volunteers. Any decent forum software has the ability for the forum owner to delegate moderation abilities to particular individual members. With a variety of moderators the balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility comes closest to being generally acceptible. The forum owner evaluates the impartiality of forum moderators, and may remove them if, for whatever reason, they don't work out. The inclusion of multiple moderators on a forum builds the strength of a forum board's sense of community by encouraging the voices of the many.

GiGi

05-14-2007, 08:56 AM

this of course raises new issues
what is harm? and what degree is acceptable?
and who decides?

physical harm? emotional harm? mental harm? spiritual harm?
self inflicted harm?

As J. S. Mill argued, freedom of speech is possibly only limited by the Principle of Harm.

"[T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

Would there be anybody harmed by this posting? It's not a personal attack, it may be offensive to some, but nobody is required to read it.

It's not enough to post the offending passage and depend on the feelings of disgust among the populous.

On the basis of what principle was this censored? What harm to another human being would have been caused by this posting?

mykil

05-14-2007, 10:48 AM

AS Barry stated when he first put this great site up a few years ago [or when ever it might have been] I believe he said something like this was to be a community of oneness. Or something put much better at the time that has alwayz stuck with me. I think he is doing a great job as god "I think we should just all start calling him ‘GOD’ for short, just as a little inside communications sarcastic satire he will deserves”. But all-in-all we are growing everyday, with this wonderful communication bulletin board that wouldn’t even be possible if someone didn’t take the time to devote most of his time editing stupid and really obnoxious behavior by allot, and even me at times when I have had a little too much on my mind. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I think for allot of us this is a large part of our world. We live with and really enjoy being around minds that think in a positive direction in life. Even the negative energy is growth and evolution in a direction most can understand and get something from. When “GOD” happens to edit something we all grow from the experience and really put thought to it all. It seems to me the ones that are talking about it the most are the ones that are always here. If ya-all didn’t get a kick out of it you would have moved on long ago. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Instead of yanking ‘GODS’ chain at every corner, maybe we should all start praying he has the gumption to maintain this site with the integrity he has to thus point, and start trying to respect his integrity; wisdom, morals and start growing to the point that is acceptable behavior in our community as a whole! It seems to me ‘GOD’ is growing right along side of us all, and we should see this in our world as being a real opportunity and not a social mind f… :2cents: <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
THANK YOU GOD FOR BEING HERE FOR US ALL!!!!!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

nurturetruth

05-14-2007, 11:19 AM

HANDS UP TO ZENO & TARS !! THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING THOUGHTS/IDEAS REGARDING THIS WHOLE CENSORSHIP AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION !

( i hope i don't get edited for using all caps there! i suppose it could be perceived as unhealthy yelling to some cyber-beings...and yet, could be also seen as an advantage to those who have trouble with their eyes. )

But what Tars said makes complete sense:

"When it is only one person, whomever it is, however decent they are personally, who alone decides what is appropriate to say, and what isn't, it most-often ends up being seen as too-restrictive by many. The sense of community is restricted, and the forum board sputters along."

The idea of having volunteer moderators for certain categories would not only allow the main moderator free personal time ...but would help keep an eye on things needing censorship or editing. WONDERFUL suggestion! :wink:

....the thing is on wacco...there are those who get off on reactions.

I observed that in the peyote vision quest thread, it started off as a simple kind request to the community. And though it was posted to Wacco Talk, which may have been a suitable home.... there was this whole stimulated debate/blog that was initiated. It was clearly NOT talk.
it was debate/blog.. and the whole simple request thread got DERAILED .

(...which I perceived offensive until Tecumseh took responsibility for his re-actions. It is a big turn on for me..when people can look at their actions/re-actions.)

talking and debating/power dances ARE different energies and DO need different "homes". to have just one category for TALK....its going to attract ALL energies. even the ranters...which clearly don't want to really talk. they just want their opinion to be heard, stir things up a little...

many just type gut instinct "re-actions/postings" while not being in control of their thoughts...and just "being in the moment'.
which is why I hold much gratitude and honor for the editing/censorship process ....

I do not do organized religion... so i was not personally offended by Edwards comments... but did perceive the posting as NOT CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING POSITIVE to the community and saw how it could contribute into a descending spiral...
--------------

** Tars, if you know of any good blog sites ...please let me know. **

usually, with blog sites, being a writer...i have often gotten bored with posting my opinion/voice because it takes time for others to react/respond....if they do at all.
Usually, I end up feeling as if I am merely journaling. and my need for feeling "heard"...which is a universal need...is not fully met.

perhaps a blog category for wacco community or a link to a blog website for wacco community could be established somewhere? :hmmm:

<a href="https://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="https://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/nurturetruth/thom.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

"in these days, there is massive energy (phuton belt and pluto) going on where self reflection/ self realizations are right up there in our face! the light is exposing the shadow/wounds and it is an incredible time for everyone to be working on themselves or even illuminate the shadow. "

nurturetruth

05-14-2007, 11:26 AM

OH MY GOD! mykil..you can be such a KINDRED SPIRIT! your post knocked me off my feet!! may have to come by your store and praise you! :heart:

All I have to say is: very well put! nicely stated and THANK YOU for expressing what I was wanting to say earlier....just wasn't sure how open Barry was to empowering the GOD within...or if he even believed in such.
I did not want to step on any toes!

but you said it beautifully...and Barry does put alot of time and energy into providing a "heaven" for community.

AS Barry stated when he first put this great site up a few years ago [or when ever it might have been] I believe he said something like this was to be a community of oneness. Or something put much better at the time that has alwayz stuck with me. I think he is doing a great job as god "I think we should just all start calling him ‘GOD’ for short, just as a little inside communications sarcastic satire he will deserves”. But all-in-all we are growing everyday, with this wonderful communication bulletin board that wouldn’t even be possible if someone didn’t take the time to devote most of his time editing stupid and really obnoxious behavior by allot, and even me at times when I have had a little too much on my mind. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I think for allot of us this is a large part of our world. We live with and really enjoy being around minds that think in a positive direction in life. Even the negative energy is growth and evolution in a direction most can understand and get something from. When “GOD” happens to edit something we all grow from the experience and really put thought to it all. It seems to me the ones that are talking about it the most are the ones that are always here. If ya-all didn’t get a kick out of it you would have moved on long ago. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Instead of yanking ‘GODS’ chain at every corner, maybe we should all start praying he has the gumption to maintain this site with the integrity he has to thus point, and start trying to respect his integrity; wisdom, morals and start growing to the point that is acceptable behavior in our community as a whole! It seems to me ‘GOD’ is growing right along side of us all, and we should see this in our world as being a real opportunity and not a social mind f… :2cents: <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
THANK YOU GOD FOR BEING HERE FOR US ALL!!!!!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

smithers

05-14-2007, 01:20 PM

I generally have a problem with censorship, but feel that personal attacks and things of that ilk do not have a place on this forum. This does not look to me like a personal attack. I am not, in my personal beliefs, insulted by Edwards remarks, but I did find them offensive. What I do find ironic is that, in explaining the offending post, Edward's attempts to clarify made for more interesting reading and perhaps the beginning of a good discussion than his stab at inflaming passions to start a discussion. Perhaps he might have gone in that direction in the first place and we'd be on-topic for his initial post and not talking about censorship.

John
:heart:

nurturetruth

05-14-2007, 01:40 PM

very nicely stated, john ! simple, short..straight to the point!

good observation! :wink: :heart:

I generally have a problem with censorship, but feel that personal attacks and things of that ilk do not have a place on this forum. This does not look to me like a personal attack. I am not, in my personal beliefs, insulted by Edwards remarks, but I did find them offensive. What I do find ironic is that, in explaining the offending post, Edward's attempts to clarify made for more interesting reading and perhaps the beginning of a good discussion than his stab at inflaming passions to start a discussion. Perhaps he might have gone in that direction in the first place and we'd be on-topic for his initial post and not talking about censorship.

John
:heart:

GiGi

05-14-2007, 01:52 PM

why do I get the impression that NT is offering her services to become one of the new co-moderators?

very nicely stated, john ! simple, short..straight to the point!

good observation! :wink: :heart:

Juggledude

05-14-2007, 09:17 PM

I've been pondering this concept for a bit, and agree with Tars on a couple salient points. While I personally see pretty eye to eye with our beloved Moderator, I realize that any community which limits itself even by the liberal and permissive values of any one person is limiting itself nonetheless. In order to avoid the dreaded sputtering along, and really achieve escape velocity, I think it would be very useful to incorporate some form of community involvement in the onerous and unfortunately apparently necessary process of moderation. I have vague schemes of some completely democratic representation, whereby feedback could be produced on many levels, on a specific post, on a user's profile, on a thread, etc. While this concept is riddled with potential pitfalls, both sociologically and technologically, it seemed like something worth brainstorming on.

For the more realistic short term, I applaud Tars' concept of volunteer community involvement as moderators, under the geas of the conscious community vision Barry has firmly championed and nurtured.

Some type of quorum process, whereby multiple moderators opinion would be needed to quash a post, or move it to the "wild and woolly free for all" category? This would balance out differing or extremes of viewpoint and/or emotion among the moderating cadre.

what say you, all?

Royce

Free expression is what these boards are all about. It's why people visit and participate, so they can take part in that process, whether it's speaking out, or just reading the opinions of others.

Kudos to anyone who makes the huge effort, and sacrifice of personal time necessary to produce a good forum. Special kudos to anyone who does it for public service rather than personal profit, but that's another topic.

When it is only one person, whomever it is, however decent they are personally, who alone decides what is appropriate to say, and what isn't, it most-often ends up being seen as too-restrictive by many. The sense of community is restricted, and the forum board sputters along.

If one wants to have only their own sensibilities presented, then they should publish a personal blog, not present a public forum.

On the other hand, there are entities who obviously have emotional problems, which are evident whenever they post. The negativity of their posts destroys the enjoyment others have in participating in those public forums.

Many forums around the net have minimized this effect by having a different moderator for each individual forum. There is almost always a surplus of volunteers. Any decent forum software has the ability for the forum owner to delegate moderation abilities to particular individual members. With a variety of moderators the balance between freedom of expression and social responsibility comes closest to being generally acceptible. The forum owner evaluates the impartiality of forum moderators, and may remove them if, for whatever reason, they don't work out. The inclusion of multiple moderators on a forum builds the strength of a forum board's sense of community by encouraging the voices of the many.

dreyfusj

05-14-2007, 09:22 PM

I think the issue is not so much one of offense (though I found the posts offensive), nor of harm (sticks and stones, etc), but rather one of utility. If these forums are designed to permit and encourage dialog and discussion, then how did these posts contribute to that goal ?
Should we debate the factual merits ? Seek and discuss the historical evidence for this view of Jesus' mother ?
Shock value aside, I found no merit or usefulness in the posts.

Juggledude

05-15-2007, 08:04 AM

dreyfusj

05-15-2007, 08:37 AM

Some logistical hurdles appear, but overall I think it is an excellent idea.

Good Grief, with the fresh light of day in my mind's eye, I just read this post I made last night, and found it loquacious in the extreme.

Translation, now that I've taken the dictionary out of my mouth:

Seems riding herd on this board is more than a one man job. We'd benefit from more perspectives, and Barry would benefit from some help.

Sound good?

Royce, simplified.

mykil

05-15-2007, 09:08 AM

Yeah there Royce ole man; The only thing I could say when I read your first post, was something like "PArDon", or "WHAT", no that wasn’t it, I think is was more like "HAH". I forget exactly but you get the jest of it all. What did you have in mind, there? Take a poll to see if a post passes mustard? That’s only has a few obstacles that pose a mind-boggling affect on the whole scenario. One: it is extremely hard to get more than one person together to discuss a post at any given time, what are you going to do quarantine them that are a little off the wall and post after you’ve all discussed the matter at hand? What happens when there is more than one decision? Will you vote and really take matters into a democracy? Who will be the final judge? Who will get the final vote? LOL! Just a few obstructions that appear, that is all. <o:p></o:p>
‘<o:p></o:p>
:idea: Maybe we should just get down right political, and the ones that are on the verge have a special polling section, viewers can read and vote to see if the post was appropriate. Thus giving the poster boy/girl/man/women/dog/cat/…/ a few things to think about. Ultimately changing the way he/she/it posts in general. Taking it to the next level of consciousness to say? That in it self would make for some entertaining reading to say the least, along with some great laughs I would assume. At any rate leaving it to Barry for now I think is best suited at this point in time. I love your idea on throwing everything into a folder that anyone can ponder thru any time they want to really see what is being written! LMAO!!! PEACE!!! My :2cents: Again!!!<o:p></o:p>

Zeno Swijtink

05-15-2007, 10:05 AM

I don't think a herd of moderators - good tastemakers who can sense the mood of the community - would do much for freedom of speech.

If we could agree to allow speech bloom, in whatever form, as long as there is no unavoidable harm to individual people, that would further the cause of liberty and expression in this neighborhood.

I would be perfectly fine with Barry deciding whether unavoidable personal harm is involved. But just basing a decision on a sense of disgust or outrage would leave free speech in shambles.

Tars

05-15-2007, 12:42 PM

I need to publicly correct a mis-statement I made earlier in this thread. I accused The board operator of deleting one of my posts, and said that I was very upset about it.

As it turns out, the post was not deleted, but was transferred from a forum I frequent, to a forum I almost never read. Due to the board operator's time constraints, no notice of the transfer was posted.

Thank you Barry for your continued good work in providing and maintaining this message board!

Tars
https://www.rpriddle.com/smile/applause.gif

Fina

05-16-2007, 08:57 AM

very nicely put Zeno
but could you give us an example of what you would consider;" unavoidable personal harm"
thanks

I don't think a herd of moderators - good tastemakers who can sense the mood of the community - would do much for freedom of speech.

If we could agree to allow speech bloom, in whatever form, as long as there is no unavoidable harm to individual people, that would further the cause of liberty and expression in this neighborhood.

I would be perfectly fine with Barry deciding whether unavoidable personal harm is involved. But just basing a decision on a sense of disgust or outrage would leave free speech in shambles.

Zeno Swijtink

05-16-2007, 07:32 PM

very nicely put Zeno
but could you give us an example of what you would consider;" unavoidable personal harm"
thanks

Excluded would be things like personal shaming (there was an instance a while ago I remember), broadcasting personal information that is not public knowledge.

Things that would be covered by freedom of speech are (examples from Christopher Hitchens' book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" copied from this week's New Yorker review by Gottlieb)

• Creationists are "yokels"
• Calvin was a "sadist and torturer and killer"
• Buddhist saying are "almost too easy to parody"
• Most Eastern spiritual discourse is "not even wrong"

Most of these are not about individual persons, while Calvin is a (dead) public figure. If you are a Budhist or so and are offended by what Hutchins says you could have avoided the offense by just stop reading, or learn something about Hutchins before deciding to read him.

Barry

05-17-2007, 05:57 PM

Hey Folks,

One of my concerns with posts of dubious taste is that it can offend some of our more sensitive members. So in order to balance that concern with freedom of speech I have created a new "Censored & Un-censored" category (suggestions for an alternate name are welcome). This is an opt-in category (you'll need to select it to receive it in your digest, see this thread (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=394) for instructions). Posts that may be offensive or in otherwise poor taste will be moved there. If they are part of an ongoing thread, I'll note that a post has been moved to the censored category and provide a link. You are also welcome to post directly to that category should you want to be particularly outrageous. I'll be announcing it in my blog as well.

There are still some things that will be unacceptable there, such as posting private email, character assassination and anything overtly illegal. Also keep in mind that kids may be in the audience.

Have Fun!
:censored: :censored: :censored:

Tinque

05-18-2007, 10:04 PM

I,PERSONALLY, am very dismayed at anyone calling anybody "God" Of course I have to admit in times of passion I have screamed his name out , thank the lord ! I am very happy with Barry's name, and I think thats whom we should speak to , talk to and acknowledge !
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

nurturetruth

05-19-2007, 12:52 AM

Interestingly enough :

"<tt>Al-Khaliq" (ÇáÎÇáÞ), is one of many of the Hindu-Arabic words for God. It stands for "The Creator".

Even though Barry is a moderator and puts much of his time and energy into creating, and maintaining Wacco...it may be really all of us that make WACCO what it is!!

</tt><tt>And even though there are many names for God, "Barry" is just not one of them.
It is actually an Irish/English origin that is an "anglicized form of the Irish name "Bairre' , which is a pet form of "FIONNBHARR."
</tt><tt>Saint Fionnbharr of Cork was a 6th-century bishop who supposedly performed miraculous cures. The Barry Islands off Wales were named for him.

</tt><tt>Hence, we are all our own Gods/Goddesses/Deitites/ Energy Ball.....creating/choosing our own reality while discovering / serving/ celebrating our purpose of existence.... (this may not apply to atheism)

REGARDLESS!

Much gratitude to Barry and to all for balancing the concern/need for freedom of speech with respect to the wide range of sensitivity levels people do have!

</tt>:thumbsup:

:waccosmile:

I,PERSONALLY, am very dismayed at anyone calling anybody "God" Of course I have to admit in times of passion I have screamed his name out , thank the lord ! I am very happy with Barry's name, and I think thats whom we should speak to , talk to and acknowledge !

Barry

05-19-2007, 07:10 PM

While I am God, so are we all! I wouldn't want a monopoly on the title. King :king:, perhaps, or better yet, Mayor, would be more appropriate! And as nurturetruth pointed out, it really is all of you that make WaccoBB.net what it is! Thank you!

I,PERSONALLY, am very dismayed at anyone calling anybody "God" Of course I have to admit in times of passion I have screamed his name out , thank the lord ! I am very happy with Barry's name, and I think thats whom we should speak to , talk to and acknowledge !<o:p></o:p>

mykil

05-21-2007, 09:26 AM

:kneel:
:partyindahouse:

Mayor of Wackville, now that is appropriate!!! :dowave:

:lotsopeople:LMAO!!!

Valley Oak

05-21-2007, 12:59 PM

BARRY IS GOD !!!

The BIG secret is that Barry Chertov is the second coming of Christ in the flesh!

I kneel 35 times a day to a photo of Barry sitting on my altar at home.

For those of you who might ask if I have suddenly become religious, the answer is YES !! For I have found Barry and I am saved!

Edward
Devout follower of Chertovism

nurturetruth

05-21-2007, 01:30 PM

I like "Mayor of Wackville" status !! Good call!!!

:kneel:
:partyindahouse:

Mayor of Wackville, now that is appropriate!!! :dowave:

:lotsopeople:LMAO!!!

ThePhiant

05-21-2007, 04:53 PM

now this is going to be interesting!
Is Roble noble????????
Barry vigorously erased the original ode to him when Diablo likened him to God.
Will Barry be more forgiving now?????????

Doesn't the guy ever get a break!

BARRY IS GOD !!!

The BIG secret is that Barry Chertov is the second coming of Christ in the flesh!

I kneel 35 times a day to a photo of Barry sitting on my altar at home.

For those of you who might ask if I have suddenly become religious, the answer is YES !! For I have found Barry and I am saved!

Edward
Devout follower of Chertovism