Carl Baugh Came With Hands Out to Get Out of Future Property Taxes -City Glen Rose Town Council 10/12/2015
Planning to open a dinosaur park in Glen Rose
Carl Baugh Came With Hands Out to Get Out of Future Property Taxes -City Glen Rose Town Council 10/12/2015
15 October 2015 at 12:00:01 PM
Carl Baugh of the Creationism Evidence museum in Glen Rose came and did a presentation to the City of Glen Rose this past Monday regarding not only his plans for a dinosaur site and store but also to see about getting out of paying property taxes in case he buys the former Three River restaurant and bar that is located next door.
The Creation Evidence Museum of Texas is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational museum chartered in Texas in 1984 for the purpose of researching and displaying scientific evidence for creation. As such the museum sponsors paleontological and archaeological excavations in addition to other extensive research projects. Carl Baugh, the museum’s Founder and Director,
originally came to Glen Rose, Texas to critically examine claims of human and dinosaur co-habitation. He conducted extensive excavations along the Paluxy River, with appropriate permission of the landowners. These original excavations yielded human footprints among dinosaur footprints (see the Director’s doctoral dissertation).He then realized that a museum needed to be established in order to appropriately display this evidence, along with sustained excavations and other areas of scientific research for creation.
Here is his pitch for the Dinosaur Park. He recently bought the property from Somervell County. A bit of history. This is property that belonged to Larry Smith and was later sold or swapped with other property to Somervell County. Somervell County didn't want to be in the business of running this property, apparently Baugh approached them to buy it, and that was it. No idea where Baugh is going to get funding but hopefully it won't be by trying to tap tax resources.
Dr Baugh explains about Fiji.
Here he is talking about how this museum he is creating is going to be "laying out" creationism.
Baugh. We would like one thing We would like your blessing. WE are transparent in everything we do. We plan to follow in the literature that is distributed, We plant to follow the Texas State Mandate that not all classrooms follow unfortunately, the Textra (textbook?) commission. We've been aware of the regulations over the years and over the decades. The textbook commission, uh, was commissioned and the classes are to follow this in science curriculum. And we are chartered with a broad charter which involves education, science, religion, social work, etc. We have a broad charter. And the literature that might be handed to anyone will cover both areas, in scientific (?) origins. question. There are two basic concepts and if either of those holds any scientific merit, then it it so be discussed and that is mandated in textbooks, or that is mandated to the textbook commission. While that is not normally practiced, we will practice it there. We will give both the evolutionary and the creation outline as to the origin of those tracks and make that available to anyone that visits the area. And they can make up their own minds and that's good education. We will not foster our opinion on anyone. We will just lay out the basic facts parallel to each other on the same page on the same pamphlet and let them practice good education.
What the heck! Texas public schools do NOT teach creationism. It's not only not *normally practiced", it's not part of the science TEKS. YOu know what IS taught? Evolution. Here's part of that TEKS
(7) Science concepts. The student knows evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life. The student is expected to:
(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental;
(B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;
(C) analyze and evaluate how natural selection produces change in populations, not individuals;
(D) analyze and evaluate how the elements of natural selection, including inherited variation, the potential of a population to produce more offspring than can survive, and a finite supply of environmental resources, result in differential reproductive success;
(E) analyze and evaluate the relationship of natural selection to adaptation and to the development of diversity in and among species;
(F) analyze and evaluate the effects of other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination; and
(G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.
The president of the Texas Freedom Network today called on the Lone Star State’s education commissioner to investigate stunning allegations about what students are learning on campuses run by one of the state’s largest public charter school operators.
An in-depth article published today by the online magazine Slate alleges that the Responsive Education Solutions charter system uses instructional materials that are riddled with factual errors, teach religious beliefs and discredited attacks on evolution in science classrooms, and promote politically biased arguments as fact in social studies classrooms. Responsive Ed, based in Lewisville near Dallas, says it operates 65 public charter school campuses in Texas, Arkansas and Indiana.
“If these allegations are true, they represent a shocking betrayal of the trust that parents and taxpayers put into our charter schools,” TFN President Kathy Miller said. “It’s imperative that the education commissioner investigate whether this charter school operator is undermining the education of thousands of students and putting the state and taxpayers at risk of expensive lawsuits.”
According to the article, science instructional materials used on Responsive Ed campuses suggest that supernatural explanations are valid scientific alternatives to evolution, declare that “God created the Heavens and the Earth,” and repeat numerous anti-evolution arguments that scientists discredited long ago.
In addition, the article notes, instructional materials for social studies present politically biased talking points as fact, such as:
The New Deal failed to help the economy during the Great Depression.
Feminism has led women “to turn to the state as a surrogate husband.”
The legitimacy of Purple Hearts awarded John Kerry – the current U.S. Secretary of State and the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 – during the Vietnam War was “suspect at best.”
President Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War-era draft dodgers was the result of “a misguided sense of compassion.”
Other inaccuracies and distortions noted in the article include a suggestion that the Samurai – a class that had been effectively abolished in the late 1800s – pushed Japan into World War II, that 16th-century Spain was a republic (it was a monarchy), and that “anti-Christian bias” from the Enlightenment helped lead Europe into World War I.
According to Responsive Ed’s website, more than 17,000 students are enrolled on 65 campuses. According to its 2013 annual report, Responsive Ed received more than $82 million in state, federal and local funding in the fiscal year that ended August 31, 2012.
But, of course, “creationism” isn’t a “school of thought.” It’s a religious belief. The Texas Freedom Network will always defend the right of individuals to pass on such religious beliefs to their own children if they choose. That is the essence of religious freedom. But creationism is not science and does not belong in a science classroom. While proponents of creationism have tried to make the issue a “conflict” in public schools, it most certainly is not a source of legitimate debate in the scientific community. Creationism simply has no basis in science.
Moreover, Responsive Ed’s curriculum materials on evolution (Kopplin has posted some of those materials online here) include a number of misleading arguments (such as a “lack of transitional fossils”) that creationists have used in an effort to undermine the study of evolution. The materials also include an entire section about “the controversy of evolution” in which creationism and its junk-science cousin “intelligent design” are portrayed as competing “theories.” That section includes this incredible statement: “Many leading scientists are questioning the mechanisms of evolution and disputing the long timeline required for evolutionary processes.” Really? Which “leading scientists” are those? Certainly not the leading scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Nor the leading scientists at the National Academy of Sciences. Nor has the InterAcademy Panel: The Global Network of Science Academies (IAP) — which includes more than 100 national science academies from around the world.
And then there’s this deeply dishonest passage from the Responsive Ed curriculum materials:
“Evolution is currently the popular theory of how life began and evolved on Earth. It attempts to explain how organisms are related in the phylogenies. The mechanics of evolution still need to be discovered, holes in the fossil record still need to be filled, and the overall theory needs to be better supported by hard evidence. Until then, controversy will continue to surround the theory of evolution.”
“The popular theory”? Evolution is the only scientific theory. Scientists need “hard evidence” to support evolution? More than a century’s worth of overwhelming “hard evidence” already exists. After all of those misleading statements in the Responsive Ed curriculum materials, students are then asked: “Do you think alternatives to evolution should be taught in schools?” On what are they supposed to base their answers other than the lies they have just been taught about “alternative theories” and a lack of “hard evidence” for evolution?
Mr Baugh is simply wrong. If he wants to believe in creationism, and hyperbaric chambers, fake footprints, etc, he is certainly entitled. But others should cast a side eye towards him when he wants to elevate creationism as legitimate science. I also wonder what school groups he plans to bring to his park if it reaches fruition. Surely no public schools would be attending since he is going to be offering pamphlets that push creationism.
More on Carl Baugh
Wikipedia because maybe SOME of the people who uncritically swallow wholesale what this man says should do some research.
Answers in Genesis has problems with Baugh too I am putting their original commentary from their website, as seen on Glen Kuban's here. Saying again, AIG (Answers in Genesis) is a CREATIONIST organization and even THEY find Baugh not credible.
Carl Baugh's Teaching
Recently Carl Baugh has been given considerable television exposure by American tele-evangelist Kenneth Copeland, and also appeared on a widely viewed NBC TV program entitled "Mysterious Origins of Man." The Creation Science Foundation (CSF) has had many calls from people who have seen the shows and suspect that some things are not quite right about Baugh's teaching.
It is with heavy heart that we criticise others who are presenting themselves as spokesman for creationism, but who are doing damage to the cause of Christ through ill-founded claims.
Some of Carl Baugh's more outlandish claims, contained in his videotape Panorama of Creation, are as follows:
1. Before the Flood, the earth was surrounded by hydrogen which was so cold it was metallic and this collapsed when God shouted. This is nonsense. It is impossible that such a surrounding cloud of hydrogen could ever be cold enough, especially in such proximity to the earth.
2. People could hear the 'singing' of the stars before the Flood. Apparently the metallic hydrogen (which could not have existed) enabled this to happen.
3. People could 'feel' the time before the Flood.
4. People can affect radioactive decay rates with their minds. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
5. Eggs do not hatch outside the earth's magnetic field. Baugh claimed that NASA did an experiment demonstrating this. Absolute nonsense.
6. Granites (which contain radioactive elements) are not exploding because they are in 'perfect balance'. However, radioactive elements do not normally 'explode' of course - that requires very special conditions which are not easy to arrange (if it were otherwise, every terrorist group would have atomic bombs!). Even pure radioactive elements will not 'explode', so the fact that granite does not has nothing to do with 'perfect balance' of the granite.
7. He argues that, in some way, radioactive minerals align themselves with the magnetic field, which is nonsense.
8. He says that people were smarter before the Flood, attributing this to a supposedly higher oxygen pressure. There is absolutely no evidence that high oxygen levels would make people more intelligent. He talked nonsense about 'four molecules of oxygen', linking this to his subsequent theories about oxygen saturation. Furthermore, there is no basis for his extravagant claims about the curative effects of high oxygen pressures - if it worked as he claims, paraplegics would be lining up to be treated (many hospitals have suitable hyperbaric chambers).
Baugh confuses many things. He confuses the pre-Flood and pre-Fall worlds in saying that there was no violence among animals 'before the Flood'. He confuses micro- and macro-evolution, getting them completely reversed.
Baugh exaggerates. For example, in discussing the Setterfield theory on slowing light, he says that it was calculated on 'the largest computer in Australia' (not true) and that scientists 'haven't been able to refute it'.
The latter claim ignores the voluminous criticisms from creationist scientists alone against Setterfield's idea. Few, if any, creationist scientists with proper research degrees in science would now support the theory, and many never supported the idea. In similar vein, Baugh promotes the 'canopy theory' as 'the creation model' when many creationist scientists have now abandoned the idea. Baugh makes a lot of use of words such as 'academically' to back up statements. For example, he says that 'parents are superior to children - this can be academically proved' (this is a no nsensical statement).
Checking the claims
CSF, as one of the major creationist organisations world-wide, wrote to Mr. Baugh two years ago asking for documentation regarding such astonishing claims as chlorophyll being found on a T. rex tooth, alleged tapes of Neil Armstrong, a NASA experiment showing that eggs do not hatch outs ide of a magnetic field, and a tomato plant that grew to 30 feet tall and produced 5,000 tomatoes when grown under light supposedly simulating pre-Flood conditions. The only reply we received had enclosed 'documentation' which was nothing of the sort.
Dinosaur Valley also features giant models of a Brontosaurus and a T. rex built for the Sinclair Oil Company's exhibit at the 1964 New York World's Fair. These models have nothing to do with the dinosaurs that once roamed the area, and the Brontosaurus (an Apatosaurus mistakenly fitted with a Camarasaurus head) never existed at all, but they're kept on hand as kitschy evidence of our evolved understanding of the prehistoric past.
As you leave the park, a handmade wooden billboard reading "See the Evidence" beckons your attention. A closer look reveals a dinosaur track with a human footprint in the middle of it. This is the Creation Evidence Museum, a small but tenacious fly in the ointment of empirical science that casts pebbles at Darwinian evolution, the fossil record, and astrophysics in an effort to advance the biblical story of creation as fact.
Founded in 1984 by Carl Baugh, an archaeologist and Trinity Broadcasting Network personality with oft-questioned credentials from unaccredited institutions you've never heard of, the Creation Evidence Museum exists at the far end of the creationist spectrum. Unlike "Intelligent Design" creationists, who accept varying degrees of the scientific record while ultimately attributing the complexity of existence to a supreme being, Baugh is a "Young Earth" creationist, who strictly adheres to belief in a seven-day creation that occurred only 6,000 years ago.
For almost as long as dinosaur prints have been identified in Glen Rose, there have been people claiming that human footprints appear alongside the dinosaur prints in the Paluxy streambed. The most celebrated of these impressions – the "Taylor Trail" – was ultimately determined to be prints of dinosaurs walking in a manner that favored the back of the foot. While even most creationist organizations now reject the "Paluxy Man-Tracks" as evidence favoring their cause, Baugh's fealty to them remains unabated.
The museum really becomes mind-blowing with its explanation of how biblical principals like Methuselah and Noah could have lived for hundreds of years. Baugh contends that prior to the Great Flood, a stronger magnetic field, increased oxygen levels, and a protective, magenta-hued "firmamental canopy" of crystallized metallic hydrogen surrounding the earth promoted longer lives and larger physical sizes. One of the museum's research projects is a "hyperbaric biosphere" with magenta windows designed to serve as a simulacrum of the earth's preflood atmosphere. Baugh claims to have extended the lifespans of fruit flies three-fold and detoxified copperheads in it. A much larger biosphere is under construction in the new building.
Baugh uses that old Memorex commercial where Ella Fitzgerald's singing shatters a wine glass as an analogy to explain how God made the earth tremble at the time of the Flood: Gravity waves sent forth by God stretched the "space fabric" to a point where faraway stars exploded. The concept of divine space fabric stretching is also used to explain how a seven-day Creation Week on earth could've taken millions of years in deep space.
Here's a video of Baugh talking about the hyperbaric chamber.
From Some Creationist Characters
And there is the Rev. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Carl Baugh, a reincarnation of P. T. Barnum operating out of the Glen Rose region of Texas. Although I am unaware of anyone who has ever succeeded in locating the source of even one of his doctorates, Dr. Baugh seems to be able to acquire new ones whenever a turn in an argument requires one. Baugh leads expeditions along the Paluxy Creek near his "Christian Evidence Museum" -- a house trailer witnessing against the heresy of evolution. The expeditions turn up fossilized human footprints amidst the dinosaur trackways for which the Paluxy Cretaceous deposits are famous. Baugh believes that Dinnie and Alley-Oop lived at the same time, you see. Although most of the alleged human prints are indescribably unimpressive, Baugh does display one that is most impressive. Being at least sixteen inches long, the "bigfoot track" is as perfect a giant's footprint as ever was sold at the fair. For some years, Baugh "gave away" aluminum casts of the track to anyone giving one hundred dollars or more to his "museum." Unfortunately, the bigfoot track has fallen upon hard times.
Dr. Ronnie Hastings, a friend of mine from Waxahachie, Texas, learned from Marian Taylor that the bigfoot print -- generally known as the Caldwell print -- was a fake. Although every scientist who has ever seen the print or a cast of it has known immediately that it was a fake, it was nice to get corroboration from a creationist. According to Hastings:
Marian Taylor revealed that this print, whose cast is in prominent display in Baugh's Creation Evidence Museum and a copy of which was sent to contributors of Louisiana's Creation Legal Defense Fund, was actually bought at Glen Rose as a carving by the Taylors in the 1960s and [was] not found in the Paluxy riverbed as claimed by Baugh.... Jacob McFall identified the cast as a copy of a carving done by one of the Adams brothers of Glen Rose carved-footprint fame. Mrs. Taylor was not very pleased about the false claims concerning the cast displayed by Rev. Baugh.
It should be noted that during the Great Depression, a number of Glen Rose Residents took to carving "fossil" footprints to sell to gullible city slickers. Among those city slickers were a number of creationists, who found the prints confirmation of both the Garden of Eden and Noah's Flood.
One last word about the Rev. Dr. Dr. Dr. Baugh. Impressed by the reported longevity of the early patriarchs catalogued in the Book of Genesis, Baugh decided that the antediluvian Earth's atmosphere was both heavier and contained more oxygen, and that oxygen was the clue to longevity. When I visited his establishment a number of years ago, I noticed a large metal tank-like object set up not far from his trailer-museum. Inquiring about it later, I learned that Baugh was planning to live in it after pressurizing it and filling it with an atmosphere enriched in oxygen. Somewhere along the line, Baugh had acquired some knowledge of chemistry -- perhaps a Sears-Roebuck doctorate in chemistry. He found out that the formula for atmospheric oxygen is O2. He also learned that the formula for ozone is O3. Presumably reasoning that if O2 is good O3 must be better, Baugh was planning to "enrich" his Edenic atmosphere with ozone also! As I said, he was planning to live in it.
I hoped to return several months after Baugh began his experiment. By then he would have been a rather crispy critter, and I had a morbid curiosity to hear what his voice would sound like after his larynx had rusted. But alas, someone seems to have warned him of the side effects of "Edenic" atmospheres, and he never carried out the experiment.
This illustrates an overlooked danger of creationism: if the same logic and methods are applied, you can wind up believing almost any irrational claim. It’s also a trademark of Carl Baugh, director of the Creation Evidence Museum in Texas, to whom ACE turns for inspiration in Physical Science 1114, aimed at 16-year-olds. This book claims that Earth was once surrounded by a hydrogen canopy, bathing the world in pink light and stimulating the production of norepinephrine (noradrenaline) in humans.
Researchers have discovered that the hydrogen canopy that may have enclosed Earth before the Flood had some very interesting effects on plant and animal life. The hydrogen in the canopy absorbed blue light, but radiated red light, so the sky was pink rather than blue! Not only did pre-Flood man see the panorama of Creation “through rose-colored glasses,” but the pink light had a definite effect on his mind and body. Modern scientists have discovered that pink light stimulates the adrenal glands to secrete a hormone called norepinephrine. Norepinephrine is both a tranquilliser and a neurotransmitter that both calms the person and sharpens his ability to think. The tranquilliser in the hormone can reduce stress and the accompanying medical complications (heart conditions, ulcers, etc) that come with our-hectic, modern-day lifestyles. Some drugs have the same tranquillising effect, but these drugs also decrease the ability to think and respond to the environment. The neurotransmitter in the norepinephrine sharpens the person’s senses and enables him to think clearly by speeding up his nervous impulses.
Metal hydrogen not only filters blue light, but it also has a fiberoptic effects. This means that light from the sun was not only transmitted through the canopy, but was also spread out across the canopy. The light was dispersed around the world – even at night! At sunrise the sky was a vivid pink color. As the colour of the sky changed, the light grew in intensity throughout the morning, until it was a light pink at noon. As the light subsided during the afternoon, the color of the sky returned to vivid pink again at sunset.
The pink colour and the light dispersion worked together to create a perfect working condition. The pink morning sky caused the norepinephrine to begin flowing and stimulating the man to work. At noon, when the pink light and the norepinephrine production were at their peak, the man worked most efficiently. The decreasing intensity of the pink light in the afternoon gradually calmed the person so that by sunset he was relaxed and ready for a peaceful night’s sleep.
Modern scientists are just now discovering what Christians have always believed – that God’s Creation was perfect.
For more information on the subject of Creation model, you might like to read the book Panorama of Creation by Dr Carl Baugh. You might also want to read some of the numerous books on Creation written by Dr Henry M Morris or other contemporary Christian scientists.
It’s difficult to know where to begin. For starters, Braterman points out, hydrogen is transparent in the visible part of the spectrum, there is no such thing as “pink light”, and metals do not have fibre-optic properties. I assumed this entry would have been removed in the 15 years since I left ACE, but a colleague purchased an identical copy this month. Remember, this is taught as science in more than 6,000 schools in 145 countries....
Teaching this to children misleads them not only about scientific facts, it distorts their view of the nature of science. If students accept what ACE teaches, they will not only believe in falsehoods, they’ll be confused about the distinction between science and pseudoscience. This is hardly a sound qualification for university entrance.
It is important to note that Carl Baugh, the person behind the museum, is at odds with other creation scientists.Click here to view Answers In Genesis' original article on Carl Baugh.
In addition, Baugh and his friends, Don Patton and Clifford Burdick, all claim advanced scientific degrees. However, research by Glen Kuban has revealed these degrees are fake. It is beyond me how a Christian can fabricate such degrees with no basis in fact. In short, Creation Evidence Museum, and its main operators, are built upon willful lies by supposed Christians.
2005 Update: Baugh now lists a Doctorate of Theology granted fromLouisiana Baptist University. This school is unaccredited, and fits the description of a diploma mill. Thus, more than two decades after claiming his first phony degree, he is still at it.
An iron and wooden hammer supposedly encased in limestone. CEM claims that this hammer could not be millions of years old (dated to the same age as the limestone) so the hammer/rock must be only thousands of years old. Glen Kuban, who has studied the claims of young earth artifacts from Texas for the last fifteen years, provides the real story behind this hammer (click here).
This footprint from what they claim is Cretaceous limestone, is said to show that man and dinosaurs walked together only a few thousand years ago. Glen Kuban provides a thorough rebuttal to this claim (click here). He shows the track contains anatomic errors, and demonstrates that abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures indicate this print was carved into the rock.
This supposed finger from a young girl, said to show bone structure in a CT scan, is nothing more than an interestingly shaped rock. Again, Glen Kuban provides a rebuttal to this claim (click here). Many of us over the years have found interesting rocks. It is clear what CEM wants to believe about the rock, but the evidence is underwhelming. Young earth creation science advocates should avoid this, and apparently all evidences from CEM.
The Meister Print
This supposed human sandal print, with the stitching showing in the impression, supposedly comes from Cambrian rock in the state of Utah. Glen Kuban addresses the claims by CEM about this artifact, showing that it is clearly not what they claim (click here).
This supposed handprint in stone has been shown to be a trace fossil and not a human handprint. Click here for this claim (search for "handprint").
Iron Pot in Coal
This pot, it is claimed, came out of a piece of coal that was struck with a sledgehammer. The coal was supposedly traced back to a mine in Oklahoma, where the coal is said to be 295 million years old. You can buy a replica of this item from CEM. No rebuttals to this item appear on the internet. This does not mean it is not capable of being rebutted. For instance, since the coal is not available, how can we provide any kind of rebuttal. The pot itself would not give us the evidence we need. Since we only have the pot, and the claims of young earth creationists, we cannot verify the veracity of their claim. Given the false claims mentioned above, especially in cases such as the Burdick Print, which was obviously carved, I have no choice but to assume this claim is also fabricated.
Creation Evidence Museum is a collection of fabricated, faked items. Items which cannot be verified, such as the iron pot, leave us with no choice but to assume these also are faked. When presenting evidence, it is the burden of the creation science advocate to provide evidence to corroborate the authenticity of the item. Baugh and CEM provide none whatsoever. When considering any evidence from young earth creationist Carl Baugh, one should immediately suspect deception and deceit.
Most of the claims on which the Creation Evidence Museum were founded have been debunked by scientists. It turns out that the tracks thought by Dr. Baugh and others to be a man's really belonged to a dinosaur that pressed the full weight, and shape, of its sole into the ground. Nevertheless, faith can rule, especially in Texas, where many, including some of our elected public figures, want creationism — or creation science, intelligent design, etc. — taught in public schools. For that matter, many want our textbooks revised for the sake of "critical thinking" so that evolution is represented less as a principle akin to gravity and more as an unproven theory, even though that was ruledunconstitutional in 1987.
I was tempted, at first, to group the museum with other curiosities like the Orange Show orCathedral of Junk and call it one man's temple to the thing he loves most. But John Milkovisch didn't build the Beer Can House so you would convert to drinking Texas Pride. Dr. Baugh wants your soul. I left thinking that it had been mislabeled as a museum. It looks and feels like a church or organizational headquarters, committed more to instruction than education. The exhibits belie a dogma that's deadly serious. For me, education isn't about the process of eliminating from your worldview those things you don't like or can't believe, but enlarging your worldview so it can fit them, if uncomfortably, inside it.
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be patient-we
have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude?
totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments
but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt
propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up
right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammersMore on commenting