Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lazamataz
It is possible that restricting angles was found to be unworkable. Bacically, all he did was re-arrange the backdrop on a temporary basis. I am no prude, nor a bible thumper but I understand the distraction now that photos were published.

My anger about this is due to the fact that I thought I had accidently gone to DU when I saw the comments on this thread. I find that to be worrysome and somewhat surprising.

262 posted on 01/28/2002 10:10:18 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]


To: wirestripper
My anger about this is due to the fact that I thought I had accidently gone to DU when I saw the comments on this thread. I find that to be worrysome and somewhat surprising.

Depends on what you expect. If you expect us to be a bunch of art-prudes who blush every time we see a Rubens painting, then I am happy we disappointed you. If you expect us to be against the waste of 8000 dollars of federal money, applied in such a way as to cause the applier to be the butt of jokes from now until either 2004 or 2008, well, then, yes, that is what you can expect.

270 posted on 01/28/2002 10:17:43 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson