A little housekeeping is in order.

I am going to take the time to make a couple of house keeping comments. I appreciate your readership. I appreciate your comments. Keep them them respectful and clean, and I will not delete them. I don't always have the time, or if the comments are really off the wall, the inclination to respond to them. Occasionally, the comments are not worth the effort required to respond.

Additionally, I have many links on my blog. There is a purpose to that. The blogosphere's draw is that it is an avenue in which many viewpoints can be communicated - stretching from the far right to the far left, and of course all points in between. I invite readers to read many blogs for insight and education, even if you don't agree with someone, there is information to be gained.

With that said, I might not agree with all the views of everyone that appear in my blog links. And that is the way it should be. Nor, do I, or can I, read all the material in all the links I provide; that should be obvious to all.

And while I encourage you to read as many of the blog links you can (that I provide), remember these are separate blogs with their own blog owners/writers and have no connection to me.

Therefore, if you click on a link and want to comment on what you have just read, it is just common sense to leave a link there (on that blog) and do not leave a comment on this blog. Because, chances are, I, nor any other reader, will know what in the h.... you are talking about.

This happened most recently and a thread with a few comments was started under a post that had absolutely no connection to the post itself.

So what I decided to do was to delete the comments under that post and then re-post the comments under this housekeeping blurb. Feel free to continue with any comments.

• what are you talking about? why all this anticommunism? i was reading the top 10 reasons to stop ACLU (or whatever you call it) and I think that the appropriate title is the top 10 reasons not to stop ACLU. Especially the thingy about child pornography was really misused. I think that they were talking about freedom of speech which unavoidably cannot stop the distribution of child pornography. But they also said that you should fight this problem in it's roots by prohibiting the production of this type of pornography. And you translate this thing into: "The ACLU supports child porn distribution". What can I say...

  By Tritonio, at 8:33 PM

• HAAAAAAALLLLLP!!!
  
  WTF?
  
  I see the screw-up fairy has visited us again...
  
  You!...Off my planet!
  
  It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.
  
  Totally incoherent.
  
  Does your train of thought have a caboose?
  
  You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.
  
  If I throw a stick, will you leave?
  
  Oh, and any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.

  By HeavyHanded, at 9:19 PM

• OK I'll try to rephrase everything I said (and add some new facts too).
  1. I am neither an ACLU member nor a fanatic communist nor a criminal.
  2. You have a link to "Stop ACLU" and I clicked on it.
  3. I then followed another link titled: "The top 10 reasons to stop ACLU"
  4. One of the reasons was "The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA."
  5. The explanation was that Barry Lynn said that "While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be."
  6. I think that Lynn talks about freedom of speech. Everybody should be free to communicate with anyone and about anything and in any way (privately or publicly). You cannot make any exceptions to this, not even for child pornography. Because everytime a goverment makes one exception, then comes another, and another, and another... Until there is no freedom of speech at all.
  7. Lynn also meant that you should try to prevent child pornography by stoping it's production. After all the damage is MAINLY done the moment a child is sexually abused and not when people see it.
  8. I don't know if the ACLU guys or this Lynn are bstrds. I just know that you try to fight them by using fake evidence.
  9. And finally all this "stand up for america" thing is totaly insane. I have seen greeks that say "stand up for greece". Germans that say the very same thing for the country etc. It's because of people like you that the earth is always on war. Why don't you say instead stand up for Africa (which is dying)? Why not stand up for the World...
  
  I hope I make sense now...

  By Tritonio, at 5:38 AM

• Well, the meaning of your words is now clearer but you do not make all that much sense. Barry Lynn’s words that ‘child porn could be prevented by law’ are not all that clear either but you correctly interpret him to be saying that child porn can be legally proscribed against within the constructs of the Constitution while it’s distribution can not be as the latter would be a violation free speech. But then you go on to say that “Everybody should be free to communicate with anyone and about anything and in any way (privately or publicly). You cannot make any exceptions to this, not even for child pornography.”
  
  There are, in fact, many exceptions to free speech. There is the classic of yelling fire in a crowded theater. You are free to believe someone is a homicidal maniac but without valid evidence to that effect you cannot say so without facing charges of libel. You cannot offer words penned by others as your own work without facing charges of plagiarism. You cannot lie under oath without facing charges of obstruction of justice.
  
  I will not presume you to hold views other than what you have specified but I would point out that there are those who would share your view on child pornography and free speech but who have no problem supporting other, less justifiable, restrictions on free speech such as school prayer and campaign finance reform.
  
  As to focusing on preventing the production of child pornography, you make a valid point but one nobody has contested. Equally, murder is a heinous crime that is best prevented in the first place but if some otherwise innocent third party were to obtain a video of the crimes execution and seek to distribute it I would not defend his doing so as a matter of free speech.
  
  Standing up for America, by the way, is not blind nationalism oblivious to our countries faults and failings that has, historically, so often devolved to tyranny but is, rather, acknowledgement and gratitude that despite recognizing our inevitable imperfections we are blessed with a system of self-rule whereby we can sustain being governed in a manner to which we consent. It is not support for all that we do but appreciation that what we do remains within our control. It is, among other things, standing up for the ability we are exercising in conducting this discussion without fear of retribution, something that is not available in much of the rest of the world, Africa being no exception. Perhaps that is contributing in some small way to its demise? Anyway, I do applaud you for standing up for your beliefs. Will you stop doing so should those beliefs become recognized as typically American?