Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: N.I. on January 02, 2005, 08:39:00 PM
-
http://www.forejustice.org/write/mental ... soners.htm (http://www.forejustice.org/write/mental_torture_of_american_prisoners.htm)
The Mental Torture of American Prisoners
Cheaper Than Lab Rats, Part II
by Hans Sherrer
written in March 1999
Prison Legal News cover article April 1999
The use of prisoners in medical experiments didn't begin or end with the radiation experiments conducted on them from the 1940's to the 1970's. [See: Part I - Can Prisoner?s Glow in the Dark?, PLN, March 1999]. As thinly dis_guised psychological laboratories, supermax prisons and other forms of iso_lating prisoners from the outside world continue the tradition of using prison_ers as "lab rats."
Psychological experimentation on prisoners raises serious cultural, legal, political, and ethical questions for the same reasons that human radiation and biochemical experiments on them did. Also, just as the radiation experiments conducted on prisoners was for the pur_pose of understanding the effects of radiation on military personnel and the general population, psychological experi_ments conducted on prisoners have a larger purpose than finding more effective ways to torment them. One of those pur_poses is to determine how political authorities can affect, manipulate, and/or control the behavior and responses of people in the general population under various conditions.
One of the fathers of today's mental experimentation on prisoners is M.I.T. psy_chology professor Dr. Edgar Schein. He became one of the western world's fore_most authorities on psychological coercion by studying the methods used by the Communist Chinese and North Koreans on American prisoners during the Korean War. 1
At a 1962 M.I.T. seminar attended by psychologists and prison wardens from around the country, Dr, Schein explained how physical, psychological, and chemi_cal techniques of coercion inflicted on American prisoners of war, could be used on prisoners of law in American prisons. 2Dr. Schein told his audience that they shouldn't be squeamish about using mind control techniques on American prison_ers perfected by the Russians and Communist Chinese because:
?These same techniques in the service of different goals may be quite acceptable to us. ... I would like to have you think of brainwashing not in terms of politics, ethics, and morals, but in terms of the deliberate changing of human behavior and attitudes by a group of men who have relatively complete control over the environment in which the captive population lives.? 3
The centerpiece of Dr. Schein's techniques of coercive manipulation is the psychological isolation of prisoners by the fraying or outright destruction of social bonds and their emotional support structure. This includes relationships between prisoners on the inside, as well as their family and friends on the outside. The reason he keyed on this as a powerful coercive mechanism, is that to varying degrees we all perceive our existence as human beings from what is reflected back to us by those living beings we come into contact with. Psychologist Nathaniel Branden named this phenomenon the Muttnik Principle. 4In the 1960's he realized from his response to his dog Muttnik, that all living beings contribute to our mental health who make us feel real by accurately reflecting our treatment of them back to us.
Dr. Schein learned from studying the successful techniques of totalitarian regimes, that isolation and other forms of sensory deprivation, psychological disorientation, and pervasive surveillance have a significantly negative effect on the human psyche. By reducing the sensory feedback that Dr. Branden identified as vital to someone's well-being, they can be used as a weapon to induce cracks in that person's mental defense system. Dr. Schein believed this predictable human response to sensory deprivation could be utilized for purposes of affecting the behavior of men and women in American prisons. He thought these mental cracks could be filled with ideas of the government's choosing.
Some of Dr. Schein's colleagues went beyond him by identifying the use of powerful psychoactive drugs as a practi_cal way to biochemically isolate prisoners from their normal influences, without the expense of physically isolating them. 5
Beginning in the late 1960s, Dr. Schein's ideas on human experimentation were put into action and overseen by fed_eral prison psychiatrist Dr. Martin Groder. He was instrumental in the transfer of "agitators, suspected militants, writ-writ_ers, and other troublemakers" to remote prisons in an effort to sever family ties by making visits difficult. 6After being moved, these prisoners were put in isola_tion and deprived of mail and other sensory stimulations. Every effort was made to weaken their internal defenses and heighten their susceptibility to influ_ences controlled by prison authorities. If a prisoner responded by abandoning his attitude of individuality, he was granted privileges. If not, his psychological tor_ture continued indefinitely.
University of Michigan psychologist Dr. James V McConnell was an enthusi_astic supporter of Dr. Groder's work. In an April 1970 Psychology Today article entitled: Criminals Can Be Brainwashed - Now , Dr. McConnell favorably com_pared the human psyche to that of rats and flatworms. 7He even thought people could be manipulated with behavioral techniques he perfected while training flatworms to navigate a maze.
Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner tried to resolve the ethical concerns that arose from the scientific treatment of the human mind like a pliable blob of Play-_Doh in his 1971 book -Beyond Freedom and Dignity. However, he chose to do so in a book with a title that neatly sums up the twisted Orwellian attitude of every_one involved in experimenting on prisoners and other human beings.
Make no mistake about it, the millions of prisoners who have been subject in various ways to sensory deprivation and isolation techniques are viewed by the scientific and correctional community as human guinea pigs. They are ?lab rats? who only differ in the type of experiments they are subjected to, from the inmates poked, prodded, and zapped during the radiation and hormone experiments that occurred from the 1940's until the 1970's.
Dr. James V Bennett, who was then the director of the U. S. Bureau of Pris_ons, made this crystal clear at the same 1962 conference where Dr. Schein made his presentation. He made the observation that the federal prison system presented ?a tremendous opportunity to carry on some of the experimenting to which the various panelists have alluded.? 8He wasn't idly talking. In July 1972, prisoners at Marion Federal Penitentiary smuggled out details to U. N. emissaries of psychological experiments that were being conducted on them. 9The use of psychological torture techniques in prisons was already widesspread enough in the early 1970's, that Jessica Mitford wrote about them in a remarkable August 1973, Harper's magazine article entitled: The Torture Cure: In Some ,American Prisons, It Is Already 1984. Among other things, the revelations in that article are credited with contributing to the end of the radiation and hormone experiments on prisoners in Oregon. 10 However, Ms. Mitford's main thrust was exposing the use of prisoners as ?lab rats? testing the effectiveness of sophisticated forms of mental coercion and powerful psychoactive drugs. In her article she wrote about the results of a laboratory experiment designed to test the effects of isolation on the human mind:
?The exciting potential of sensory deprivation as a behavior modifier was revealed through an experiment in which students were paid $20 a day to live in tiny, solitary cubicles with nothing to do. The experiment was supposed to last at least six weeks, but none of the stu_dents could take it for more than a few days: Many experienced vivid hallucinations - one student in particular insisted that a tiny spaceship had got into the chamber and was buzzing around shooting pellets at him. While they were in this condition, the experimenter fed the students propaganda messages: No matter how poorly it was presented or how illogical it sounded, the propaganda had a marked effect on the students' attitudes - an effect that lasted for at least a year after they came out of the deprivation chambers.? 11
Ms. Mitford expanded on her Harper's article in Kind and Usual Pun_ishment: the Prison Business (1973). In the chapter detailing psychological ex_periments on prisoners, she quotes a 1970 prophecy Dr. Bennett made about prisons in the year 2000 AD: ?In my judgment the prison system will increasingly be valued, and used, as a laboratory and workshop of social change.? 12
Supermax prisons and other experi_mental forms of mind control exercised on prisoners are a part of today's reality that Dr. Bennett envisioned almost thirty years ago.
Remarkably, authorities in the federal government recently let the cat out of the bag they are aware of their potential li_ability for conducting psychological experiments on prisoners. This was re_vealed in The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) enacted in 1996. Its provi_sions contribute to the legal disenfranchisement of prisoners by effec_tively limiting their ability to redress wrongs and grievances through the fed_eral court system. One of its provisions specifically prevents prisoners from suc_cessfully suing prison officials for ?mental or emotional harm unless they can also prove physical injury.? 13 Almost diabolical in its design, this provision of the PLRA effectively prohibits lawsuits stemming from the psychological torture rampant in America's prisons.
It is significant that isolation experi_ments involving prisoners at Dachau were among the vivisection experiments conducted by Nazi doctors. 14 Needless to say, the work of these discredited Nazi doctors is being continued daily in the laboratories of physical and mental tor_ture masquerading as American prisons.
Non-consenting prisoners are experi_mented on in many dehumanizing ways. Yet their systematic mistreatment is openly condoned by political, judicial, and bureaucratic authorities in the United States who view them in the same way the Nazis viewed the inmates at Dachau and Auschwitz. They don't believe they are really people.
END
Endnotes for: The Mental Torture of American Prisoners - Cheaper Than Lab Rats, Part 11 . This essay was originally published in Prison Legal News, April 1999, Vol. 10, No. 4., pp. 1-3.
1?Coercive Persuasion: a Socio-psychological Analysis of the ?Brainwashing? of American Civilian Prisoners by the Chinese Communists,? Edgar H. Schein with Inge Schneier and Curtis H. Barker, W. W. Norton, New York, 1961.
2?The Torture Cure: In some American pris_ons, it is already 1984,? Jessica Mitford, Harper's, August, 1973, pp. 16-30, 18.
3Ibid., p. 18 (emphasis added).
4?The Psychology of Self-Esteem: a new concept of man's psychological nature,? Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D., Nash Publishing, Los Angeles, 1969, pp. 184-188. Dr. Branden also refers to this principle as psychological visibil_ity.
5?The Torture Cure,? p. 18.
6?Kind and Usual Punishment: the Prison Business,? Jessica Mitford, Alfred A Knopf, N. Y. 1973, pp. 123-125.
7?Criminals Can Be Brainwashed - Now,? Dr. James V. McConnell, Psychology Today, April, 1970, pp. 14-16.
8?The Torture Cure,? p. 18 [9] ibid., p. 18.
9Ibid., p. 18.
10 ?Psychologist pays price to stop experi_ments,? Karen Dorn Steele, The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, WA, June 19, 1994, p. A8.
11 ?The Torture Cure,? p. 25. (emphasis added).
12 ?Kind and Usual Punishment,? p. 130, quot_ing Bennett's book, I Chose Prison (1970).
13 ?Criminal Injustice: Confronting the Prison Crisis,? Ed. Elihu Rosenblatt, South End Press,
Boston, 1996, p. 83.
14 Ibid., p. 325. Vivisection is the scientific ritual of experimenting on animals in ways that are known to be painful to them. When human beings are involved, an important part of this ritual is redefining them as a form of non-hu_man animal so they can be mistreated with a clear conscience. For example, the Nazis re_ferred to Jews as lice and rats, because ruthlessly rooting out and exterminating disease carrying vermin is considered to benefit society as a whole. (See: ?Dominating Knowledge,? ed. Frederique Apffel Marglin and Stephen A. Marglin, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990, pp. 163-169.) Similarly, the criminal justice pro_cess in the U.S. is a ritualistic procedure that among other things, serves the function of re_defining someone convicted of a crime as something less than a whole human being. Once officially dehumanized and accorded the legal status approaching that of a 19th century plan_tation slave, men and women labeled as criminals are ?legally? permitted to be treated with con_scienceless disregard.
-
"From the bottom of any large organization looking up through the ranks, human greed and stupidity look a lot like a conspiracy."
--S. Gilbert
If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist
-
But that Senate report on The Seed came out in '74, right? So, the people who went over from The Seed to the brand new Straight had to know... (I have only begun researching this one.)
-
The Senate report came out in Dec 1974. It talks about Edgar Schein and others but only one juvenile treatment program--The Seed. The St Pete Times did a story on the report and the straight organizers had to have known about it. The Seed was crushed partly because of the negative impact of the report and Straight-St Pete closed in 1975. Straight opened in 1976.
You can get a copy of the report at any federal archieve library. Many colleges are. See:
http://thestraights.com/images/seed-Ervin-brainwash.gif (http://thestraights.com/images/seed-Ervin-brainwash.gif)
Wes
-
The Straight model so perfectly fits known brainwashing techniques! I want to know: who knew what they were doing? Did exec staff know? Did the BOD know? The national directors? Has anyone ever admitted to knowing that what they were doing to the kids was brainwashing? How much was junior and senior staff told?
-
I don't know if it was serious or a joke, but anytime brainwashing was brought up, we were told our dirty brains needed to be washed and cleaned.
-
I thought it was called positive pier pressure...or kids helping kids....you mean they lied to me! Damn!
Seriously, Straight was just a company making money....I think most of the directors thought they were doing right....and that mostly because they never had to sit in a blue chair...probably never were at the end of a bad dope night....all they knew is what everyone thought was correct in those days....Tough Love and positive pier pressure cures all....Sr. and Jr. staff were graduates and so it stands to reckon that they would believe in the program and want to give back...until they relapsed and then I'm sure it got harder to come to the building and give back....
D
-
On 2005-01-10 01:30:00, N.I. wrote:
"The Straight model so perfectly fits known brainwashing techniques! I want to know: who knew what they were doing? Did exec staff know? Did the BOD know? The national directors? Has anyone ever admitted to knowing that what they were doing to the kids was brainwashing? How much was junior and senior staff told?
"
Everybody, from the beginning, constantly. Of course, we all denied it most of the time. "Haha, I'm not brainwashed! I'd know it if I were!" But, when really pressed, Seed and Straight parents would say just what the other poster said "Your brain needed a good washing!" or "If this is brainwashing, give me more!"
A free people ought...to be armed...
George Washington, 1790
-
My confusion on this matter centers around this: suppose they thought that they were doing a good thing and helping out kids who were addicts. What then did they think they were doing with all of the kids who weren't and had no history of using drugs? My suspicion I guess is that they figured if your parents were unhappy enough with you to bring you in, then you probably were at the very least a "potential addict."
-
I'm thoroughly convinced that the Semblers, my mother and Donald Ian MacDonald all believe to this day that they did and are doing the right thing. I also think that Hitler and Manson and Jim Jones probably all thought they were doing great things too. That doesn't mean any of them are right.
Sembler and MacDonald, for example, were Seed/Straight parents before they were big wheels in D.C. They both climbed the ladder on promises to solve America's and the world's drug problems. I think it would be helpful for the rest of the world to understand just what they mean by 'drug problem' and 'solve'.
I had an open invitation from HRS to go after my parents over 20 years ago. I declined indignantly. I get what you're saying. But if my mother were writing public policy about raising other people's children, I'd damned sure have to call her out on it by name and very publicly.
You can lead a camel to water but you can't make it stink (any more than it already does)
-- Job
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
OK, I know this is a stretch but I like to think this is a little bit of karma. Teens are reportedly causing problems for Mel and Betty's Baywalk. :lol: :lol:
http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2005/1/10/67880.html (http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2005/1/10/67880.html)
-
Yes, and what about the inherent contradiction in the term, potential alcoholic/addict? They believed that addicts were suffering from a genetic disease...yet it can be only potential in some people. Better yet, maybe that's why they thought that, maybe they meant that you had the disease but it hadn't manifested...yet. There are so many problems I can see with their thinking processes it is ridiculous. They had no proof that their approach even worked, and it seems they made no effort to find out. Nobody's ever called me to find out how I've been since I was in there. Not to mention the lack of evidence on the whole disease concept. And the disease concept is what keeps them from looking at the social causes of their addiction, yet their cure was purely social. A disease would require medication, wouldn't it?? I guess humiliation was the closest thing to medication they could come up with. How did they make that leap, since they didn't have any medication, that humiliation was the way to go.
[ This Message was edited by: jane on 2005-01-11 13:43 ]
-
On 2005-01-11 13:40:00, jane wrote:
They had no proof that their approach even worked, and it seems they made no effort to find out. Nobody's ever called me to find out how I've been since I was in there.
That's why I wonder about their true motives. They have never shown any real concern over how their program effected us psychologically or whatever. But they've always paid extremely, almost obsessive, attention to the polls. Anon polls about personal drug use, ER mentions of various drugs, street prices, number of arrests, etc. Those are always in the news and a topic of discussion at school board meetings, legislative sessions and press conferences.
But DFAF and their direct affiliates seem specifically interested in another, rather odd, line of pollstering. They conduct polls to measure their success at influencing the ATTITUDES of kids and parents toward drugs; specific ones and in general. Some of their press releases talk about people's perception that marijuana has medical value as a problem to be solved (at our expense)
So have they really failed? Or were they just shooting for a different objective? If the objective was to influence Americans that kids who are not hostile toward all drugs (not sold by Eckerd Drugs, anyway) are mentally ill and in need of 'treatment', I'd say they've enjoyed great success! And they have been watching. Look at PRIDE Surveys. They've been publishing too!
If we choose to violate the rights of the innocent in order to discover and act against the guilty, then we have transformed our country into a police state and abandoned one of the fundamental tenants of a free society. In order to win the war on drugs, we must not sacrifice the life of the Constitution in the battle.
--US District Judge H. Lee Sarokin
-
You make interesting points. This reminds me though of a teacher I had, a psychology teacher who was openly in AA. He was teaching us about addictions, and he pushed the disease theory on us the whole time. He said, some people still debate this, but for the purposes of this class, it's a disease. Meaning, that's what you'd better put on the test. The only treatment method he ever talked about was something involving AA, although he did mention RR briefly he didn't agree with it. He never got into Harm Reduction, Motivational Interviewing, or anything really other than AA and maybe some cognitive therapy. The only statistics he went over were about how many people in various age groups abuse drugs. I figured he must think that it went down with age due to them all killing themselves off, but that wasn't even addressed in the class. Why do the numbers go down, what types of treatment are the most effective, etc, etc. For some reason, he seemed to block out anything that might challenge his view of things, even if it was the truth. I asked him once if he thought the family dynamics had anything to do with it, his answer--no way. Because it's a disease, remember? I got an A in that class. Of course he told us exactly what was "correct" and what wasn't so it was an easy A.
-
We are the sons of Reagan ...Heil!
Gonna kill us some pagans ...Heil!
The right's your sacred mission
Start an inquisition
Gonna purge the heathen minds!
We are Reagan Youth! ...Heil! Heil! Heil!
Reagan Youth ...Zeig Heil!
We are the sons of Reagan ...Heil!
We are the godforsaken ...Heil!
The right is our religion
We'll watch television
Tons of fun and brainwashed slime
We are the sons of Reagan ...Heil!
We are the unawakened ...Heil!
Want another war?
Forward to El Salvador!
Gonna kill some communists!
You are Reagan Youth! ...Heil! Heil! Heil!
Reagan Youth! ...Zeig Heil!
Don't be fooled!
-
did you write that? i was just trippin on the eighties. thanks
-
On 2005-01-10 14:41:00, jane wrote:
"My confusion on this matter centers around this: suppose they thought that they were doing a good thing and helping out kids who were addicts. What then did they think they were doing with all of the kids who weren't and had no history of using drugs? My suspicion I guess is that they figured if your parents were unhappy enough with you to bring you in, then you probably were at the very least a "potential addict." "
I think this is what something that is often lost....something that really bothers me still....I think when I went in I had "drug addict potential" but was not a drug addict....hell even a few years later when I had developed some real unhealthy habits and needed some help, I doubted my being an addict....it seems so hardcore...still I saw, as you did, my fair share of kids who probably didn't even posses that potential....how did they get past their 14 day eval? I thought they'd send me home after 14 days....I do think they THOUGHT they were doing right a majority of the time.....which is twisted within itself....but bottom line was, is, bacame.....it was a business...and we all represented $$$$$$$$
D
-
Well, we're free now anyway. So why even wallow in the past? Forget all the bullshit and do more research on ourselves and such can be great, but still the unanswered questions are out there. There really are no secrets. This is the information age. Why not crack open a the good book for starters, and then move on? :wstupid:
Psychedelics often produce psychotic and even violent behavior in those who have never used them.
--Timothy Leary
But opiates clear up your problems from LSD. Under a physician's care, it's not drug abuse.
_________________
"This is a Republic"-VA Man.[ This Message was edited by: The Seeker on 2005-01-12 00:48 ]
-
I believe the Sembler's thought they were doing the right thing. At least initially. I think their crime was one of denial then ego and then later pride and greed. At some point amongst all the allegations, investigations and lawsuits, anyone not completely deluded would have paused to consider that something might be wrong. When they had get Straight's license via the backdoor over and above the concerns and objections of Florida's HRS, surely there must have been an inkling that something was wrong. The board had to know about the lawsuits, the licensing issues, the concerns of outside psychologists, the ACLU. They knew why the seed was shut down.
They believed that THEY KNEW BETTER. Their line of reasoning probably goes something like this -Everyone who complained initially just didn't understand. They were naive. They just didn't know about druggies. Not like Mel and Betty and the omnipotent Miller Newton. Those who objected to the tough love philosophy were just fainthearted. Ill advised. Under informed. Deceived. Straight and Mel and Betty and Dr or Mr or Father Newton would have to continue their important life saving work even while former clients, the ACLU, HRS, and other misinformed, naive psychiatric professionals nipped at their heels. It was actually a philanthropic venture. People just didn't understand. Why it was practically martyrdom.....
Massive egos. Arrogance that blinded them even to the possibility that something might be wrong. At some point though there must have been some internal doubt. Some inner voice that said "what if". But by then it would have been very costly to acknowledge. Their repuations, careers & livelihoods were built around their "philanthropic" enterprise. What if it turned out to be harmful instead of helpful. What if they were WRONG? I'm sure that was processed and weighed in a split second and shut down immediately. They couldn't afford to consider the possibility.
Still can't. After all if it were really all about helping people they would have followed up to find out how effective their treatment was. They would have considered things other than a career in politics and public speaking venues and which judge or senator they'll be sitting next to at dinner. If it were truly philanthropic, Mel would be raising money to help those injured in their misguided little experiment.
If Betty and Mel and Miller had to get as honest as we used to, they'd have to admit that it was all about them. Still is.All of these comforting and reasonable things were taught by the ministers in their pulpits -- by teachers in Sunday schools and by parents at home. The children were victims. They were assaulted in the cradle -- in their mother's arms. Then, the schoolmaster carried on the war against their natural sense, and all the books they read were filled with the same impossible truths. The poor children were helpless. The atmosphere they breathed was filled with lies -- lies that mingled with their blood.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer
-
Dr, Father Virgil Miller Newton on the other hand was a sadist as well as an ego maniac. Liar. Fraud. Charletan.
Monster....
He KNEW what went on daily. He approved of it and directed it. I was there during his tenure. He was there when they read my diary to the group. Pacing at the back of the room. Glaring at me. Because I called HRS. I caused him grief. HRS dared to question his methods. He was there when they refused us bathroom privileges. He knew about the pb & j diets. Knew about the crazy exercise raps, 2 hours worth of sleep. He was there when dozens of kids were carving on themselves daily. He KNEW.
And he often bragged about Straight's mission. Your brains are filthy. Full of shit. We are cleaning them out. If that is considered brainwashing then we're guilty. He periodically made this speech. Proudly.
He knew. It's just that he knew what went on and he KNEW BETTER. And he LIKED it. :skull: For myself, I do not believe in any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.
--Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist
-
He still likes it. Seriously. This guy can't just lead a normal life. He HAS to be a guru to someone. Even if it's only in his pathetic little church. He thrives on people either blindly adoring him and thinking he's the answer to everything or cowering and running in fear from him. Can you imagine if we were ever able to have him psychologically examined? Narcissistic personality disorder. Really. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that fits that bill so well.
-
I know, it sux. I don't know what I'd do without my psychiatric medicene and all the behavior modavication that went with it? It's sort of like when you reach a l;evel where you don't fit in anywhere and you need the drugs. I just take what's prescibed. It's not considered abuse. It's clean and FDA approved and I'm not on as much as I used to be. These programs weren't really what solved my drug addiction. It was a doctor, who gave me pills instead of unclean criminal drugs off the street. At least I don't have to deal with any street characters.But the doctor doesn't stay very long. I get new ones all the time. They can't figure out what the problem is. I'm a drug-addict. All the psychology books are just as annoying to me as their programs and such. They have programs there too. I don't attend. I got their diploma years ago. I threw it away.And their special whatever award for doing stupid human tricks.It's a zoo in there. But I fucked up after my first chance at a new life years ago. I was young enough to be stupid.
In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
--Unknown
Prozac is a bad drug that makes you kill yourself. I stick to opiates.
_________________
"This is a Republic"-VA Man.[ This Message was edited by: The Seeker on 2005-01-12 18:16 ]
-
On 2005-01-11 22:59:00, Pietra wrote:
"did you write that? i was just trippin on the eighties. thanks "
No. An 80's New York punk band called
Reagan Youth did that song.
I use it as my screen name because it sums up my time at Straight.
-
:rofl: :tup:
-
:silly: