How to ruin a ‘positive statement of belief’

You know, I pretty much agree with a sentiment expressed by the many people who wish the perennial courthouse unpleasantness would just go away. That sentiment is commonly expressed something like this: I uphold the right of anyone to express any belief, no matter how offensive, because that’s what the Constitution guarantees – but it would be more effective and neighborly if the way people chose to express their beliefs was limited to inoffensive ‘positive statements’.

Consider the campaign, spearheaded every year by the American Family Association*, to get store clerks and others dealing with the public to say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays.” I personally don’t care what people say to me; if someone says “Happy Holidays” I don’t have any trouble understanding what they mean, and if they say “Merry Christmas” I don’t jump to the conclusion that they’ve intentionally dissed some other holiday. However, this detail is important to the supporters of this group, and they have every right to advocate via legal means for the changes they want. Their campaign involves (in part) distributing buttons and stickers that say “It’s okay to say Merry Christmas.” So far, so good; that sounds like a positive message expressing their belief.

Now, consider how this message was deployed in the following instance. After the public input session on Monday night, my husband and I stopped at Vintage 50, just down the road from the government center. The pub had a poster on display out by the entrance, advertising their seasonal specials. Someone, as shown in the accompanying photos, had slapped one of their AFA stickers over the logo on the poster, under the section containing the phrase “This Holiday Season.” The person who chose this means of communicating did so even though the poster also included, just as prominently, “Christmas Eve” and “Christmas dinner” events. It seems that Vintage 50 feels that it is indeed okay to say “Merry Christmas,” but this is not good enough for our sticker-wielder. Here’s what it looks like they really meant: “It’s not okay to NOT say Merry Christmas. Every. Single. Time.” Or maybe this: “Don’t you dare ever say ‘Holidays’ or we will vandalize your property.”

This isn’t persuasion; it’s bullying. It’s political correctness with a side of smug entitlement. If I were a small business owner in Leesburg, and strangers who call themselves Christians had defaced my advertising with their imperious demands (however nicely worded), it would leave me with a very negative impression of Christians. And I see that bullying, vigilante approach replicated over and over in the current debate.

That’s why it’s hard to take too seriously complaints of Christian belief being denigrated, as if only non-believers are responsible for the nasty and denigrating tone of the conversation.

The worst thing one could honestly say about the (also vandalized) Santa-on-a-cross display – actually conceived of and designed by a thoughtful Christian high school student – is that it was in poor taste, meaning that the young artist misjudged how his work would be interpreted by those who didn’t know his intent. But the assumption on the part of the torches-and-pitchforks crowd was nearly uniform: They presumed, with no evidence at all, that he was an angry, mean “atheist” with no motivation other than to offend them and ruin their Christmas. But supposedly Christian vandals are doing a pretty good job of ruining Christmas all on their own – why, for example, was the (to me, anyway) kind-hearted “Letter from Jesus” display also destroyed by vandals on Monday night? Can anyone who was offended by that tell me why?

The nasty tone we are seeing now, three years on, was set by the false accusation leveled by grandstanding Eugene Delgaudio: that the county was going to “ban the nativity scene” and was engaging in a “war on Christmas.” This characterization is false and inflammatory in every respect. In fact, if anyone was justified in thinking that the county intended to ban expressions of their religion in the public square in 2009, it was the other faith communities that had just in the previous year been included in the holiday display on the courthouse lawn. The nativity scene had existed free of vandalism or even serious objection for many years. Talk of banning all displays only started after the displays were no longer exclusively Christian. I’m not suggesting that this fact had anything to do with the initiation of such talk, I’m just saying.

There are rude, obnoxious people on both “sides” of this manufactured, falsely framed controversy, and they seem to have one thing in common: They want things to continue as they are. There are also thoughtful people willing to hear each other if they are given a chance.

*The AFA’s status as an anti-Muslim and anti-gay hate group doesn’t directly pertain to the button and sticker aspect of this campaign, but it is necessary, I think, to the reader having a comprehensive understanding of this situation. The hate group designation is in large part due to statements by the well-known AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer, whose many jaw-dropping remarks include the assertion that non-Christians “have no First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.”

37 thoughts on “How to ruin a ‘positive statement of belief’

  1. Elder Berry

    About 25% of the population is kind of off, mentally, you know what I mean? You could characterize them as fanatics, fundamentalists, non-thinkers, fear-based, whatever. They are beyond reason and beyond rationality. They are easily aroused by hate-mongers and turn into haters at the slightest provocation.

    It’s pretty sad, isn’t it? But I think it maybe has always been this way, only the targets change over the ages.

  2. Barbara Munsey

    David, I agree that the “letter from Jesus” was not anywhere near as vulgar as what is now being attributed to a “Christian HS student”–excellent reframing, but probably won’t get the traction you’d like.

    However, in the spirit of this post (where you again exercise your self-given prerogative to say what others really mean, and then brook no argument with it) as a person of faith (in fact an authority representing the broad spectrum of the Loudoun community, according to one of your posts at LTM), don’t you find it just a little bit presumptuous for someone to sign themsleves up to speak for God?

    THAT is one of the most disturbing things I ever find with religious conflict: if God is who most religions seem to say he is, who the HELL has the temerity to say “God means THIS” or “God wants THAT”?

    Writing a letter for God? Okay, you call it kindhearted (while someone who does something with which you disagree is a bully, etc etc), I find it presumptuous.

    This small act of vandalism that has you in a tizzy (in order to keep flogging the policy issue which will now be addressed by the next BoS–darn!) is akin to the urban guerrillas who think it is way cool to affix their “eating animals” stickers under the STOP on traffic signs, or the “Bush now!” ones also popular for stop sign vandalism before everything hopefully changed in 08–maybe you could start a campaign to prosecute everyone in their varying causes from defacing property with their beliefs on stickers?

    And let everyone enjoy their First Amendment right to religion unmolested.

  3. Epluribusunum Post author

    Are you claiming to believe Jeff Heflin is not a Christian high school student? If so, you may be in line for a Turkey of the Year nomination. There’s no doubt that what he did was perceived as disrespectful and even hateful. That’s how people saw it, and it is what it is – but he is who he is, also. He has his own identity.

    The facts are what they are, not what you would like them to be. Yes, who does have the temerity to say “God means THIS”? Just about everyone with a religion, as a matter of fact – which is one reason that the exercise of free speech sometimes produces results like this. As you’ve said, it can be messy.

    What I shared at the LTM is my personal knowledge of how a variety of communities of faith feel about participating in the current free speech zone – in general, people find the idea demeaning to their faith, and so have no interest in submitting applications. The public forum participants are never going to be representative of the faith communities in Loudoun, in other words. Many will exclude themselves.

  4. Elder Berry

    Barbara you are saying that there is no point worrying about one offense if you can’t stop every single instance of the same act. There’s some name for that sort of debating and rhetorical gambit but I can’t remember it right now. Anyway consider your gambit noted.

  5. Barbara Munsey

    elderberry, I see that you are of the same “church” as David, in that you like to rewrite what people say and then chastise them for wrongly believing it.

    No, I didn’t say “there is no point worrying about one offense if you can’t stop every single instance of the same act”.

    I’d like to see David call out EVERY instance of sticker vandalism (as it is not a new thing, and has been around for a long time before any Christians started doing it), and not just the ones he disagrees with (they’re BULLYING!), just as I’d like to see him pursue the specific act of vandalism against skeleSanta instead of going on a drama tirade against fictive “mob rule!” while Jonathan resorts to the stock of calling people Nazis.

    Yes, there’s a name for what technique you are utilizing as well. Projection, and straw men.

  6. Barbara Munsey

    David, he may very well BE a Christian HS student, I’ve no clue.

    Nobody was calling him that until he became a “victim”.

    I was thinking more about this letter, and it made me think of elderberry’s comment on 25% of the human race being lesser, stupid, fanatic, out there, etc: how kind hearted is it, if it was written with the idea that these poor folks believe in God, so if I write a letter and sign it GOD, then maybe the poor things will get it?


  7. Pariahdog

    In the comment threads in the newspapers, many people are calling Jeff’s art “hate speech”. They also say we wouldn’t tolerate artistic license with an Islamic symbol. Wasn’t David Ramadan smeared for having the same last name being as an Islamic month? Some people have short memories. They can’t remember the last time they “shoved hate down our throats”.

    We don’t know if the sticker pictured was an isolated incident or a larger civil disobedience campaign. If you see sticker vandalism, please take a photo. We can do a collage of their stickers. How long will it take them to call exposure of their own actions “anti-Christian hate speech”.

  8. Epluribusunum Post author

    It is, as Barbara points out, only a “small” act of vandalism. Probably the person who did it doesn’t even recognize that it is vandalism. The purpose of the buttons (personal expression) and the purpose of the stickers are different – unless the stickers are intended to only be affixed to one’s own property, like a car. But then why are they not conventional bumper stickers? It does seem to me as if they were designed for the purpose they were put to in this case, a sticky calling card to express unhappiness with the holiday expressions of small businesses.

  9. Barbara Munsey

    David, here is the Beltway Atheists disclaimer on the abused young man:

    “Let’s get a few things straight, for the record, about this year’s first displays. The first two displays were put up by a mother and son team. While Jenelle is a member of NOVA Atheists meetup group, a social group sponsored by Beltway Atheists Inc., her son put this display up as an individual.”

    They don’t say he’s specifically a Christian, but perhaps they wouldn’t. Since his mother (part of the “team”) IS a member, perhaps that’s where the supposed confusion arises? Duh? lol!

    Jonathan, as I said in one of the other threads where it was studiously fingers-in-ears-LA-LA-LA ignored, if the rainbow paint was hate speech, then so is skeleSanta crucified, particularly as the paint photoshop had no human figures present, and the supposedly Christian “art” was based on historic figure Nicholas, and in a graphic representation of death by torture.

    As for running around taking pictures of stickers, that sounds both productive and effective. If you wish to do so, more power to you. Make sure you take pictures of the political ones, and the vegan ones, and the animal rights ones, and the anarchy ones, and so on, on both private and PUBLIC property, and not just the “christianist” ones that seem to bother you most. The affixion on private property could lead you to take action by supporting the business, a personal choice with benefits to both you and the vendor. The defacement of public property costs us all, no matter our opinions on the philosophy thus hawked, so that would be a civic boon on your part to document. Thank you!

    David, I would say they are not conventional bumper stickers when they are purely designed to complete a statement by being affixed to a common (public) sign, as in the “EATING ANIMALS” stickers sometimes found pasted on “STOP” signs. It would appear that those are deliberately produced for the express purpose of vandalism of public property.

  10. Epluribusunum Post author

    [P]erhaps that’s where the supposed confusion arises?

    Precisely my point, thank you. People were confused and repeating things that weren’t true, sort of like the news reports from Monday night. I don’t think it was a deliberate misrepresentation.

    The Santa cross display clearly is seen as hate speech by many people, regardless of the artist’s intent. I can see why. The inclusion of the skeleton just says “death,” and it’s not at all clear what the message is supposed to be unless you knew it beforehand.

    Defacement of stop signs is widespread across the political spectrum, but here we are talking about applying stickers to someone else’s private property. There have been other campaigns like this, of course. I remember one in the 80′s that involved putting stickers saying “this insults women” on offensive advertising. I don’t have any information about how well it worked.

  11. Elder Berry

    Barbara Munsey it is convenient for your argument to link Santa Claus, a fat man in a red suit, with the historic Catholic Christian saint Nicholas. Most of the fundamentalists who are pushing this war on Christmas baloney are Protestants, and what the heck do they care about the Catholic saints anyway. Give me a break, it wasn’t Nicholas (the third century Greek bishop who was persecuted by Roman emperor Diocletian) crucified at the courthouse, it was Santa Claus, the guy with the sack of presents, who is pretty much a literary creation of Washington Irving and Clement Moore.

    I keep wondering if you and others who think as you do would think the vandalism at the courthouse was minor if it was the creche that had been destroyed.

    Those stickers are just pure rude. I keep seeing people share that “it’s OK to say Merry Christmas” thing on Facebook. It’s odd because don’t know of any campaign to keep individuals from saying Merry Christmas, in fact I think the continuing suggestion that there is any such campaign is a purely cynical political dirty trick. There is Christmas, yes, but there are also other holidays to be celebrated this time of year, and people should be able to greet anyone in any friendly fashion they choose. I guess I feel those stickers are very un-Christmas-y in their manner, actually.

  12. Epluribusunum Post author

    It is very un-Christmas-y, and I think what some of these folks don’t understand (or don’t care about) is that it’s not only offensive to non-Christians but to many Christians as well. This campaign is right in line with the growing mean-spiritedness of the commercial ad campaigns, which is noticeably worse this year. Just kind of nasty. I can completely understand why the young man from Middleburg wanted to make a statement about how this has all killed the spirit of Christmas.

  13. Barbara Munsey

    David, you still haven’t answered whether Jonathan BELONGS to the atheist group, which is what the news report said. I don;t care whether he is or isn’t committed to the belief system.

    The atheist group website identifies the mother as a member, and the mother and son as a “team” of displayers. She is the woman who ghost-writes for Jesus, right? So, again, I don’t care what belief system he practices, if he and his mom are working with the atheist group as a team to set up hate speech displays of skeleSanta crucified, and write letters on behalf of God to the poor dumb 25-percenters who believe in God, what difference does it make if you say he’s a Christian (so there?)?

    It appears you are sticking with selective information for the purpose of having incorrect (or incomplete) info become the narrative, which is precisely MY point.


    elderberry, it isn’t “convenient”, it’s where he came from. In Europe, their representation of “Father Christmas” looks far more like the original, and in our family tradition we had the Krampus too (the little devil who hides beneath Santa’s robes, much like Ignorance and Want in “A Christmas Carol”), to give coal and switches to the naughty.

    You have objective evidence that they’re all Protestants, or is it just convenient for your argument? (check your history book again, because there WEREN’T any protestants until a few centuries ago, and if you go to most Protestant churches, how mahy are named “St. Peter”, Saint John” and so on? Lots, but don’t let it get in the way of a good diversion–lol!)

    I agree that people SHOULD be able to simply offer greetings, eat their luch, shop, etc without being accosted by militantly zealous evangelists huffily correcting people for offering a “Merry Christmas!” at Christmas time…..or sermonizing people for driving non-hybrids, or buying imported fruit, or wearing fur, or not recycling fully religiously, or….

  14. Barbara Munsey

    David, just read your link to the article proving that “many Christians” find stickers, commercialism and general mean spirited un-Christmasy-ness etc offensive–the link to your own blog post at your church, featuring the same sticker photo.

    Watch out, the “christianists” might think your Name is Legion.


  15. Epluribusunum Post author

    If you say so, Barbara. The post from the Methodist pastor quoted there has gone viral, because “many Christians,” yes, find these things offensive.

  16. Barbara Munsey

    I read it David, and noted that some posters called the pastor out on continuing to contribute to the atmosphere of contention, and his own state of anger in doing so.

    I read the lovely article about the 4-year-old who lost her pet, and the kindness of the individual who answered her letter to God.

    Do you see any difference between a SPECIFIC FOUR YEAR OLD (no intent to shout, but definite intent to emphasize) directly ASKING GOD something and getting a kindly answer, and a member of an activist atheist group…treating the faith-based public at large like a bunch of four year olds, unsolicited?

  17. Epluribusunum Post author

    Barbara, maybe in your world correcting the record when a hasty news report gets something wrong is “selective,” but here in the real world it’s just correcting the record.

  18. Barbara Munsey

    David, he is quoted in the UK press as a representative of NoVa Atheists, and all around the internet.

    We can quibble about WHETHER he is an atheist, whether he belongs to the group, whether he isnetworking with the group, or merely their photographer, but you’ve hardly set the record straight on a supposedly singular “hasty” report.

    “Nothing to see here”, back to the narrative.

    Yes, there is a lot of unkindness. It would appear much comes from people gaming the system with activism to enforce their own preferences on all others (and I don’t mean the people that simply want to be allowed to place a creche to mark the season).

  19. Barbara Munsey

    “Epluribusunum says:
    11.12.11 at 14:04
    Barbara, maybe in your world correcting the record when a hasty news report gets something wrong is “selective,” but here in the real world it’s just correcting the record.”

    David, I decided to look for myself, and I think I found the source of all of the misleading confusion in those hasty news reports incorrectly identifying Jonathan as a member of the atheists’ group:

    That is page 4 of the “Members” section of the NOVA Atheists, which Jonathan was said to be a member of in several reports. Jonathan is listed as a member there.

    You are also listed, on page 3 of the “Members” section.

    If this is the source of the confusion for the various news outlets, and thus anyone who reads those news outlets, maybe that is what needs to be corrected, if you are both wrongly listed as members on the group’s website?

  20. Pariahdog


    A meetup group is like a list server. Anyone with an email address may sign up. I’m also a “member” of the Loudoun County Republican Committee announcement list.

    It’s nice that the NoVA Atheists are so transparent.

    Would you like to see the new BoS do likewise? Technically, it’s pretty easy to set up a list server. Automated and tamper-proof public archives would eliminate the need for electronic correspondence FOIAs. Archives will insure that *all* communication is immediately available in the archives. Come to think of it, a commitment to openness may result in higher quality correspondence.

  21. Barbara Munsey

    Thanks Jonathan. Maybe you should send that suggestion to the new Republican BoS, so they can benefit from emulating the “openness” of the atheists.

    Yes, the site is pretty open. I also read the messaging including this string between a member who is a fairly prominent LCDC member of long standing as well as a member of the atheist group, and David:

    (LCDC official): “On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:27 PM, xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
    >> Mission accomplished! Right? Wasn’t the goal to have no religious displays
    >> on the court house grounds? I was pissed when the BoS wimped out. This is
    >> the way it should be. No displays.”

    (David): “On Dec 6, 2011, at 1:16 PM, David Weintraub wrote:

    > No, misson not accomplished. More will be going up later in the month,
    > and there will probably be more vandalism since Ms. Czawacki and
    > others were given tacit permission to vandalize things that offend
    > them by a law enforcement officer.”

    (LCDC official) “From: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent on: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 6:54 PM

    Crap. I can’t believe they will not deal with this with all of the Dems on the way out.”

    So, the “mission” and GOAL is to have no religious displays on the courthouse grounds, and in David’s affirmation of that framing, the mission has not yet been accomplished, and an official of the local D apparatus is upset that his fellow Ds didn’t take care of it on their way out the door.

    I understand Jonathan, that “the enemy of your enemy is your friend”, but it really shoots a hell of a hole in David’s comments about how Christians should behave, from his position as a church elder, etc. I’ve seen him comment one place about Christians “bearing false witness” in that when their beliefs differ from David’s (the authority), they are lying.

    In the world of this blog, where one imprecise word makes one a “documented liar” if it differs from the prescribed narrative, the game-playing with the attribution of membership in any atheist group (it’s only a listserve! gol! maybe Republicans should get one!) and then the shift to “incorrect” hasty info causing confusion about said membership WOULD be called LYING, or perhaps BEARING FALSE WITNESS if one wants to mimic Christian language.

    Just as “the mother and son from Middleburg” apparently actually live in Fauquier.

    And “the Christian high school student” apparently graduated from Fauquier high last spring, so he isn’t a “student” in the present tense, is he?

    And his mom talked extensively on how this year he would be participating in the atheist displays with her.

    I know it all has to be framed properly if the advance is to continue against everyone you guys have marked as personal and political enemies, but again, the credibility, and most importantly the moral high ground David stakes his claim on has taken a huge hit here.

    You have both been far less than open, or transparent about the networked activity to accomplish the “mission”: no religious displays.

    If you yourself acknowledge the openness and transparency of the atheist group’s records, then it would seem that while the word “conspiracy” is a bit dramatic (project! divert!), the networked activity toward a common goal of suppressing any faith-based display is documented.

    Please don’t continue to lie about it, in other words, and I don’t use that word nearly as freely (and cheaply) as has often been the practice here.

  22. Epluribusunum Post author

    Barbara, people are transparent when they have nothing to hide. I think that Nova atheists have been quite forthcoming about their position that there should be no displays, religious or otherwise, on the grounds of the courthouse. I agree with that view, and I have reason to think that a lot of other people of faith agree with me. Nothing should be on the courthouse grounds except war memorials.

    A couple of things:

    I don’t know where you get your information about the high school guy. My understanding is that he’s 15.

    You still haven’t addressed what it is about the content of the Letter from Jesus that you find objectionable. All that you have said (because you haven’t read it, perhaps?) is that you think it’s “presumptuous” for anyone to express what they think God is saying – which is kind of a silly statement since that’s obviously what every member of the clergy and the Vatican does. Please address the question you were asked. If you don’t have enough information to do that, just say so.

    I thought that the “mission accomplished” remark was snarky and uninformed, hence my response to it.

    I know that it’s really important for you to reframe everything to fit your (sorry) conspiracy theory, though, so have fun with that. When your reframing crosses the line into bearing false witness against others, I will continue to point that out. And Merry Christmas. Let’s hope the new board can resolve this so we don’t have to keep having the same conversation next year.

  23. Elder Berry

    Barbara Munsey is your worldview really so limited or are you just pretending it is?
    A lot of people who say they’re from Middleburg live in Fauquier. Many people are surprised that Middleburg is in Loudoun, in my experience. Certainly this new BOS is likely to pretend that Middleburg is not in Loudoun. If the kid doesn’t have a job he might likely describe himself as a high school student even if he’s graduated. You seem to be the one who is nitpicking words.There is no visible war against religion going on here. There does seem to be a war by religion or at least religion’s spokespersons against anyone to whom religion is not the be all and end all of life. Or anyone who takes the US Constitution seriously. We have a Statue of Liberty as a symbol of our nation, not a statue of anyone’s particular idea of God. Presumption seems to be your fault as much as anyone else’s since you presume to define David and Jonathan’s relationship with religion. Who made you the Pontifex Maximus anyway.

  24. Elder Berry

    Barbara Munsey isn’t it that most of the Protestant churches that are “Saint Whatever” are Episcopal/Anglican (“Catholic lite” thanks to Henry VIII) or are named after the Apostles, not typical Catholic saints. I was confirmed at a St. Luke’s myself, but our congregation never went in for the whole “born again” experience so I’m sure some would consider me “not a Christian” and like David and Jonathan I’d ask how they (you) can speak for God in determining anyone’s faith or lack thereof. Talking to Muslims or taking my shoes off in a mosque doesn’t make me a Muslim, exchanging ideas with atheists doesn’t make you one. Or does it, in your mind.

    Not a diversion, anyway, it’s the whole point. There’s a creche on the lawn, it’s sat happily undisturbed. Interpreting the other displays as “attacks on religion” rather than just personal statements is a stretch by you and the rest of those who want to have the right to free speech but don’t want others to have it when they don’t like what’s being said. You get to say you believe, they get to say they don’t, and the kid and his mother get to say that Santa is on a cross. P.S. Jesus wasn’t the only one ever crucified.

    One more thing Barbara Munsey, nothing stopped more religious observers from lining up to get the dibs on the courthouse spots for displays. Presumably that will be the next tactic if the incoming Board decides to keep the displays. Since piling on is a tactic used by the right wing crowd at many BOS speaking opportunities and there seems to be a lot of overlap, it is kind of surprising that we didn’t get a whole lawn of creches. It is sad that expressing one’s ideas becomes a competition and a zero sum game in some minds.

  25. Epluribusunum Post author

    Well, she really doesn’t know, EB. She spends a great deal of time googling and grabbing selective bits and pieces from the internet that she doesn’t understand the context of (sometimes they’re even about someone else with the same name!), and weaves it all together with her own framing. It just comes across as vindictive and self-important.

    Kind of makes you wonder who she’s “affiliated” with, though :)

  26. Barbara Munsey

    David, I know how her name is spelled. How adorably snarky of YOU to spell it in a way that implies she’s nuts.

    I also think its adorable for you and elderberry to prattle on about how awful I am, in order to create some distance between the fact that you prevaricated endlessly, and apparently for very good reason, on being involved in an activist push to ban religious displays on public property, while pontificating about being such a good omniscient tolerant Christian.

    If you don’t know for a fact where he lives and how old he is, then why work so hard to spread the tale that he’s a poor little victim of a Christian HS student? I know that’s what he NEEDS to be in print for the narrative to work, but it doesn’t appear to be true.

    (p.s. to elderberry, I know the Middleburg zipcode extends into Fauquier, even though the town limits don’t.

    They have the zipcode fully in Fauquier south of that. oops.)

  27. Epluribusunum Post author

    Well, for one thing, I tend to give more credence to people who actually know him than I give to you. That’s quite a tale you’re spinning!

    FYI, I made the spelling error in the first place because I know someone by the name Czawacki. I’ll be sure to let her know that Barbara Munsey thinks she sounds “nuts.”

  28. Barbara Munsey

    David, I did not say I thought she sounded nuts, but as your elastic relationship with control of “truth” is becoming legend, I don’t doubt you would reimage it that way.

    I relied on someone who knows him pretty well: posts made by his mother, and by himself.

  29. Epluribusunum Post author

    Would you care to clarify what you did mean by the phrase “implies she’s nuts” on account of her name? I’m open to alternative interpretations, if that’s how you want to spend your valuable time :) .

    Like I said, if I hear otherwise directly from them I’ll be happy to make the correction.

  30. Pingback: Are you being persecuted? | Loudoun Progress

Comments are closed.