Baskin son on why he won't reunite with parents...

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by everybodylovesrs

Actually the person posted a lot of factual information that hasn't been disputed yet.

I'm going to quote someone who had a very wise and prescient comment on another thread about Arthur Paul Beal, several years ago (December 13, 2009 to be exact):



That very same "someone who knows him" could be Bunting in this case (knowing the Maples).

You will hate me for re-posting that, but it was wise then and it's wise now. And unlike with the new poster, you can't accuse me of only posting about them, or just joining.

Thanks so much for posting this everybodylovesrs and for calling me wise. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't like you quoting this. It's always great to get both sides of the story and no one should have to apologize for their opinions. However hearing both sides of a story and choosing whom you believe doesn't give you the right to attack the other side. There should be respect. Your completely disrespectful post wishing Marvin would rot in hell (which you recently said you were not sorry for) was what prompted Jon to post on here in the first place so you are the last person that should be lecturing people on behavior.

[everybodylovesrs]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

Thanks so much for posting this everybodylovesrs and for calling me wise. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't like you quoting this. It's always great to get both sides of the story and no one should have to apologize for their opinions. However hearing both sides of a story and choosing whom you believe doesn't give you the right to attack the other side. There should be respect. Your completely disrespectful post wishing Marvin would rot in hell (which you recently said you were not sorry for) was what prompted Jon to post on here in the first place so you are the last person that should be lecturing people on behavior.

Funny, because if you read the Arthur Paul Beal thread -a lot of people were giving their opinions (and not so flattering I might add) about him being a liar and a criminal, and then "someone new" came along and said how dare you do that, and that was your response to them. No one apologized for what they said about Arthur Paul Beal because a friend or family member joined the forum. So they shouldn't now that a family member of the Maples is here.

[TakeAWildGuess]

OK. Here we go. I'm just going to go through the numbers here, and seriously be done for a while... The "Why?" I won't be posting will be addressed later.

Originally Posted by James T

Really it is just a term, we can call it what we like, the popular one during the Satanic Panics/Child Abuse panics/Alien Abductions stories of the 1980's & early 1990's is False Memory Syndrome.

I find semantics to be important, because how can you intelligently discuss something if you don't really know what you're discussing? Plus, there are some connotations of certain words that can be misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by James T

How could you stop believing in God? Well you imply that you did-so likely this was as a result of you parents & your grandparents influence all through your formative years, when you are away from that influence-either via leaving home or through people passing away.

Again, that's my point. I stopped believing when my grandparents were still alive... If they had such a hold over me, and if I was able to break through one of the things they did their best to get me to believe, wouldn't I be able to break through another?

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

So yes, what the Maples did was wrong. It was kidnapping.

Legally, no it wasn't. You cannot legally kidnap someone you have legal custody of. Which my grandparents had, of Jennifer and myself, at the time we left. Now, if they'd gone in the night and taken Michael, too, as some people seem to think they should have, then they would be guilty of kidnapping. They were guilty of violating a court order for not appearing at trial. They violated custodial interference, which is very different from kidnapping, basically just that they realized custody had legally transferred to someone else and that they did nothing to correct it. And there's a specific thing they're guilty of with regards to identity, and I know exactly what this thing is, but I won't get into all of that as I'm also guilty of some identity stuff starting at the age of 16 that I'd rather not divulge. So, no "kidnapping" ever happened. Again, semantics are important.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

I did have the fortunate experience of receiving some messages and talking to a few folks with direct knowledge of the case.

You obviously have a lot of detailed knowledge about the case. I'd wonder who shared this with you, and why they are not fighting their own battles on the board? I was a child at the time and you have access to a lot of information that I won't have access to until I receive some court transcripts (which will be ordered, at some point). But it's obvious a lot of this is true as a lot of it coincides with what I remember.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

The initial petition... granted by Judge Corlew... simply charged that Mark Baskin and his father, were "rough" with the children in regards to discipline and they felt that Mark could not adequately support all his children. They cited "discipline", "negligence" and "abandonment".

Not aware of this so I cannot comment. I know that custody of my sister and I was not granted until after what happened to me in the bathroom in the motel and that was not some sort of supervised visitation.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

At no point did the Maples suggest sexual, physical or emotional abuse.

I'd want to ask for your source on this.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

I was directed to an exchange between the Baskin and Maple camp in an old newspaper story which allowed comments. It was stated that during this time that Sandra Maple was not happy with Mark Baskin regarding his religious beliefs and was disappointed that their daughter had converted. It was the subject of controversy with the family for years.

Again, where is this exchange recorded? Is it some sort of official document or hearsay? I will say that my grandparents never made a point of bad-mouthing the Baptist Church specifically -- there are actually a lot of parallels between Church of Christ and the Baptist Church.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

The court investigation found this also to be also true(as I was told by someone close to the case).

Who? Plus, I don't put a lot of weight, personally, on the court findings as I believe the court findings were flawed.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

It appears Judge Corlew was going to order the children back to the Baskins and they(the children) were required to be at court. Prior to the court date, the Maples charge that Mark Baskin was "sexually abusing" both children during a court ordered supervised visit at the Maple's home.

We were going to be ordered back, but the rest is all wrong. The sexual abuse happened in a non-supervised visit from Mark and Debbie where they took us all to some cheap motel. This incident has been referred to as the "Vaseline incident" in the circles who have followed this case.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

The Maples nor the DCS representative witnessed such abuse nor knew when it occurred during the session.

Because they weren't there. Your timeline is all out of whack.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

We're talking about a man who ran around for months telling close friends he'd kill the children before he'd turn them over to the Baskins.

This is hearsay that was never substantiated.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

"The grandparents’ allegations became more bizarre and included talk of satanic worship and cults, and their list of alleged perpetrators grew to include social workers, attorneys and mental health officials", said Sharp to the press.

I don't know about this. I have to claim ignorance. I never said the words "Satanism," "Satanic Cult," etc. Could my grandparents have claimed something like this? Perhaps. It could be that, in a state of shock from what they had learned, they read in between the lines and thought since there was a ritualistic element to some of the abuse, and due to the fact that it ran in the family (Mac and Charlotte, Mark and Debbie) that they, also under the influence of the Satanic Cult scare everyone loves to talk about so much, jumped to some conclusions. Then the possible paranoia that the horror of the situation created may have caused them to read the incompetence of the "social workers, attorneys and mental health officials" as full compliance and involvement in a perceived cult.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

I think folks are under the impression that Sandra Maple was told one afternoon by Bobby that he was being sexually abused by his father and mother, and for 20 years their story was unwavering.

Yes, that's what happened.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

Both children 'outed' their grandparents to not only police investigators, but to DCS case workers and mental health professionals.

According to whom? This never happened. If someone is saying so it's a lie. I never "outed" them because there was nothing to "out" them over.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

When time began to run out as they failed time and time again to provide the evidence they claimed to have, they began to claim that Mark and Debbie were "sexual abusing" the children during court ordered supervised visits.

I have no memories of being abused during the supervised visits, just terrified. Again, I'd like to know your source. If my grandparents said this, then yes, in this instance they were not being truthful, but I do not concede it happened that way without a little more information. In fact, I think it's another lie.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

It was alleged that Marvin had rescued one or both children from a "coven", where children were sacrificed. When pressed for dates and times, he was evasive.

Uhm... what?!? Someone is smoking some really strong ganja, here, and I know it's not me.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

Sadly I would even settle for part of the story had Jon been honest and said "yes my grandparents did lie, because they honestly believed I was abused".

Sorry you don't like me telling you what I believe and remember.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

Instead he played along with the narrative and insisted that the sexual abuse continued during the court ordered supervised visits, which both Maples and a social worker was present for.

Again, I have no recollection of this so I never played along with that narrative, nor did I ever claim to.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

Once the "satanic ritual" angle looked just plain nonsensical, he lied and charged that this was invented by the Baskins, despite the fact that records exist and numerous investigators have publicly stated that the Maples were the ones who told this narrative to investigators and the court for months.

Yeah, I never said that. I said I doubted it was Satanism. I may have indicated (can't remember) a belief that it was a side-story invented by the Baskins, or you may have inferred that is what I was suggesting, but I really don't know where it came from and who said what about that, nor did I claim to know, as I don't have the court transcripts at this time. My story has never changed. I cannot help it if you assumed I said things I never did.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

Sharp and Goodwin extensively investigated this case even taking the side of the Buntings, and made it clear he would take a look at evidence they would provide. But they didn't even cooperate and provide all this exculpatory evidence they claimed to exist following Marvin's arrest.

That's just not true. We never claimed to have evidence beyond our memory. There was no promised evidence. I was very alert when all of this happened, and my stroke-victim grandfather and deceased grandmother were in no condition to create new memories for me. So someone's lying, there.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

When pressed for specifics, (Jon) is then evasive and uses broad generic descriptions.

I'm not going to tell people on this message board everything that happened to me. The Statute of Limitations is passed on this case so there's no point. I told specifics over the phone to the prosecution. Greg Reed (dad's attorney) flew out to be present for this as well. Those specifics got dad off with time served and a record that was expunged after five years of not having any legal issues. When he died, he didn't have a record of being guilty of anything.

Originally Posted by unsolved88

I always wanted to know more about Debbie's sisters and why they apparently sided with their parents. I wish UM had interviewed them as it may have cleared up a few of the questions we've all been asking. Perhaps the show reached out to them and they declined.

According to Sherry and Patti, it was quite the opposite, actually. They reached out to UM and UM declined their participation, stating that they had the story they were looking for.

Originally Posted by unsolved88

I didn't even know that Debbie had any siblings at all because the segment basically gave the impression that she was an only child. I kind of wonder if they never liked or approved of Mark for some reason and felt that when Debbie married him, she changed or that Mark changed her. Some families get like that.

Again, according to them, there was no tension before the accusations came to light. And they believed me, because I told them what happened through the eyes of a child who didn't even know what to call some of the things that happened, and thus used child equivalents of certain body parts. I didn't fully understand what was happening, but I knew I felt safer with my Nanny and Stomp (my old nicknames for my grandparents) because they didn't do those things.

Originally Posted by SertumAEnigmA

Yep. Some have also speculated on Jon's motives with his recent public presence, which looks like a marketing campaign. Very generic answers lacking specifics, but if you buy my book...

I think we know where this is going with mention of this "autobiography".

The original interview I did with Holly Bounds has about one hour of footage. She had to edit that down to fit into a segment that was seven minutes and change, just to have the gist, so, yes, it's going to look more like something nice and glossy. She did a great job, IMHO, with what she had to work with, and I'm very grateful to her for letting me be heard at all.

I am looking into potentially giving a more detailed interview down the road that would likely only be online, just so there would be no time constraints.

The autobiography is therapeutic for me, is far from finished, and may never be published. It's something, along with doing the interview with Holly Bounds, that my therapist supports as a means of learning to integrate my trauma, to live in the present moment, and to accept who and what I am, without guilt of being a poor enough child to potentially deserve what they did to me; or the guilt of escaping when my brother was left behind; or the guilt that my grandparents were so afraid of getting caught that they did not seek medical attention when needed, and it likely cost my grandmother her life, and greatly shortened my grandfather's all because I had to tell them what was going on. A lot more therapeutic than posting on this board has become. But it's slow going because it's painful to write, time-consuming, and I simply work too much. I'm going to need court transcripts, old newspaper articles, and to interview individuals willing to talk that were around when the whole thing happened. No, I will not be relying solely on my own memory for this piece, I was seven years old for half the story I want to tell. But that book isn't going to go into a lot of graphic detail about exactly what the abuse was. Maybe more than here, but I'm not about to take the verbal idiocy that some of the trolls on here will respond to that with. It's difficult to talk about as it is, and I honestly think anyone who literally wants the abuse details in all their gore is somewhat ill in the head. Not to say I'm the perfect example of mental wellness, but my therapist says I'm getting much better.

And that's one of the main reasons I need to step away from this board. It takes up more time than I technically have to give, but I'm grateful for the time spent here as it's given me the courage to move forward.

Believe me, don't believe me. It's your choice. Also, I appreciate all the support I've gotten from so many people on this board. Truly. Hopefully everyone can play nice for a while.

Good night, John Boy.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by TakeAWildGuess

Legally, no it wasn't. You cannot legally kidnap someone you have legal custody of. Which my grandparents had, of Jennifer and myself, at the time we left. Now, if they'd gone in the night and taken Michael, too, as some people seem to think they should have, then they would be guilty of kidnapping. They were guilty of violating a court order for not appearing at trial. They violated custodial interference, which is very different from kidnapping, basically just that they realized custody had legally transferred to someone else and that they did nothing to correct it. And there's a specific thing they're guilty of with regards to identity, and I know exactly what this thing is, but I won't get into all of that as I'm also guilty of some identity stuff starting at the age of 16 that I'd rather not divulge. So, no "kidnapping" ever happened. Again, semantics are important.

Semantics are as important as facts. Your grandparents had a kidnapping warrant out for their arrest. When your grandfather was caught, he plead to the lesser charge of custodial interference. The kidnapping charges were dismissed for:

Reed asked for the dismissal because the warrant did not state probable cause, the court does not have jurisdiction and the allegations are duplicates because more than one offense is alleged to have been committed against more than one victim. Reed also asked the warrant be dismissed and Maple’s record erased.

Yes, kidnapping DID happen considering the Baskins had legal custody transferred back to them and your grandparents took off for 20 years. I am sympathetic to you and your sister's situation, and am open to have my mind change. But I don't understand the hang up over semantics other than it paints your grandparents in a more negative light. If you want to make the argument that morally it wasn't kidnapping, fine. I can see that if the allegations were true.

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Semantics are as important as facts. Your grandparents had a kidnapping warrant out for their arrest. When your grandfather was caught, he plead to the lesser charge of custodial interference. The kidnapping charges were dismissed for:



Yes, kidnapping DID happen considering the Baskins had legal custody transferred back to them and your grandparents took off for 20 years. I am sympathetic to you and your sister's situation, and am open to have my mind change. But I don't understand the hang up over semantics other than it paints your grandparents in a more negative light. If you want to make the argument that morally it wasn't kidnapping, fine. I can see that if the allegations were true.

Jon has addressed a ton of Issues brought up here today and I don't believe wants to continue posting but here are a few things about the kidnapping aspect he mentioned to me that I'll share.

a) they had full physical custody of us and with that in mind kidnapping cannot legally happen at the time that we left,

b) we were already gone when the custody changed so no one could be kidnapped because it already happened in the past and there are laws about how you can't be found guilty of something you already did after the fact that a new law or legal finding says it shouldn't be done,

c) just like all the other things that they did wrong in filing the kidnapping warrants, it's not hard to believe that they also filed a warrant for the wrong crime, and

d) we have a system in the United States called innocence until proven guilt, and the law has never found Marvin Maple guilty of kidnapping. So legally he's not guilty of kidnapping, just like legally the Baskins aren't guilty of doing what I remember they did. It doesn't mean it's right, but if you weren't there you can't say it happened

[SertumAEnigmA]

Originally Posted by James T

I think it is a good thing-he/she has bought up many pertinent points & it would be a great thing for Jon to address those issues. I am surprised you are saying this poster is posting false statements & rumours when they might well be true & that he is discouraging Jon from speaking which is not the case at all. If Jon cannot handle legitimate questioning of his version of events & claims persecution then that is pretty ludicrous, as is the need to 'protect' him, I don't think anybody feels anything but sympathy for him & his sister who are undoubtedly victims either of their parents or grandparents & I believe religious abuse from both.

Exactly and thank you!. I understand that many are excited that an individual who was featured on their favorite show is posting here. I never once called Jon names or slandered him with false allegations. Those who are jumping to his rescue, he's a big boy. Certainly if what some nobody on a message board is asking him is just way too hard, then imagine the scrutiny he will endure in the media should he publish a book.

He's an adult accusing two people of sex abuse. He chose to come here. As I said before, fawning over him and hanging on his every word, attacking poster's character(whom you do not know) over the facts is just like the Maples. If you actually cared about Jon, then you wouldn't turn a blind eye to pure fiction that he states as fact.

Sadly, we are talking child sexual abuse. It's a serious charge in both the court of law and public opinion. If you were being accused of such things, would you expect at least some proof to back it up? Sex abuse is by far the most heinous crime in my book. I'd prefer a murderer next door than this.

Now for those that feel they have the honor of having Jon decide to join them on the 'Sitcoms' board first, I can assure you that it is not his first outing. It was Jon and/or members of the Maple camp(venture out sometime and check other boards, topix and comments in newspaper articles), who explicitly claimed that the "satanic angle" was an invention of the Baskins in order to make the Maple's claim look ridiculous, since it has been proven that not one single case of SRA exists. The Maple camp also tried to persuade the viral community that "soon cold case investigators would substantiate Marvin and Sandra's allegations of sex abuse".

The only problem is.... it just simply wasn't true.

Here is the issue. After Marvin's arrest, just as in any pending criminal proceedings, the defense and their allies are allowed to peddle whatever BS they want. The police and prosecution, not so much. Once all was said and done, individuals close to the Cold Case investigations came forth and refuted both allegations. Sharp, Goodwin and RCSD have been nothing but transparent following the plea deal. They, with assistance from the FBI looked into the case extensively. I do believe Behavioral Sciences was involved in an attempt to draw Marvin out. But that's my opinion.

'Satanic Ritual Abuse' was a claim and invention of Marvin and Sandra Maple during the original custody hearings and subsequent criminal investigations.

Not a single investigator has come forward in defense of the Maples or at the very least supported the "possibility" of child sexual abuse.

For those who are honest and who did have an active interest in this case, would know that Marvin Maple's own attorney had to put the word out and plea with supporters to suppress all the vile accusations against the RCSD, the Baskins and the disinformation that was getting peddled by Bunting supporters online. They certainly were doing him any favors. I'll even up the ante. I'm certain that the "few" supporters of Marvin that trolled board to board, supposedly clarifying things, were pretty close to Marvin. Get my drift? And an individual who was pretty vocal in both blog and forums wrote an open letter to the DA asking that if anyone who aided or knew Marvin or the kids whereabouts prior to his arrest should also be prosecuted. There were a few names peddling the two sides to every story deal.

Sorry folks. This case has survived the scrutiny of two criminal probes by the RCSD. Two criminal probes by the FBI. A 10 month investigation by the Tennessee Department of Children Services. Two judges and 10 months of court proceedings. Let's not forget the Maples had the opportunity after the kids turned 18, like any responsible individual would have done and turned themselves in and set the record straight. At least to get Michael now. Right?

And most importantly, it survived the media.

What I find almost obscene, is that despite no evidence of abuse, not one person involved in the investigation(s) ever came forward and remotely questioned the agencies' involved or investigators directly. None of the investigators were ever accused of sex abuse, except by Sandra and Marvin. The obscene thing is, folks would buy into proof of guilt by the slander of individuals who do not support the Buntings. Oh Debbie and Mark are religious. Guilty. They are scum. Oh Debbie's glasses are too big. Guilty. Pedophile.

As I said before. Never been a fan of the Baskins personally. But their story has stood the test of time. Probably more scrunity than most investigations featured on the show.

As you witnessed again, if you question the Maple's version of events, their camp continues the attack the individual's character than the facts.

For once, refute the facts.

[James T]

Interesting responses from Jon, he does seem willing to admit to some extent that his grand parents made some poor decisions & surprisingly it seems neither he nor his sister have been given full access to the court details of what happened in the late 1980's, which is appalling & is an indictment of the legal system if they have asked for all relevant information & been denied it.

[DazzlerSparkler]

This is all very confusing to keep track of and it seems like a never ending storm. Its so difficult to figure this all out. I suggest locking the thread for now due to the chaos.

[freakbook]

The grandparents lied to get custody. It happened to me. My mother was a drug addict, and I had to live with my grandmother when I was 7. I couldn't be enrolled in school without some sort of custody, so my grandmother took my mother to court to get custody, and to receive the VA benefits I received from my father.

My grandmother had told the court that my mother had molested me. This had never happened. Never. She was a drug addict, but never harmed me one bit. My grandmother won the case, and got temporary custody. She talked bad about my mother day and night, and really tried to turn me against her.

I think this is what happened here. Jon sounds scorned in his interview, but I don't think it's because his parents had abused him, it's because "they left him behind". I felt the same pain when my mother abandoned me for drugs. A resentment. They couldn't afford to take the other two children, so I'm sure they're resentful. Then you add years of their grandparents lying, and poisoning them about their parents, then you have scorned children. I feel like they have a "how could you let them take us?" spite going on.

If their parents are so abusive, then why didn't the other son speak out against them? Why is he apparently owning a comic book shop, and not strung out somewhere or in prison?

I really don't know what his parents did, no one here can honestly answer that, but his grandparents did lie, and spent years bad-mouthing and lying about their parents. I'm sure alot of "if they loved you, then why didn't they take you?" type of talk was going on. You spend years hearing your grandparents bad mouth, and talk dirty on your parents, then you have someone who's upset that the parents left them behind and this is what you get.

[Hot Jock]

Originally Posted by TakeAWildGuess

******EPIC POST!******

[idol]

Originally Posted by TakeAWildGuess

Believe me, don't believe me. It's your choice. Also, I appreciate all the support I've gotten from so many people on this board. Truly. Hopefully everyone can play nice for a while.

Good night, John Boy.

Best wishes to you and thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Hops3098]

Originally Posted by DazzlerSparkler

This is all very confusing to keep track of and it seems like a never ending storm. Its so difficult to figure this all out. I suggest locking the thread for now due to the chaos.

Respectfully, I think that's a terrible idea.

I realize that we, as posters, are given the privilege of posting our thoughts on the board, which is someone else's property, not our own.

That being said, I think locking a thread, editing, or deleting someone's post should almost never be done. Obviously, in cases of abuse I'd be in favor of it, but I don't think there has been much of that in these recent postings. Differing viewpoints? Absolutely! Strongly-held opinions, sure. A lot of the opinions under-informed and sometimes it has gotten personal between posters.

But to simply curtail discussion of a case because it's a hot topic or censor a certain viewpoint (through locking, editing, or deleting), in my opinion, goes against what this board was and is meant to do- promote such discussions and respectful expression of our opinions.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

We are all permitted to express our opinions. As long as said opinions remain civil and are expressed without resorting to personal attacks on other members, the thread will remain open.

[mozartpc27]

Hello.

I am mozartpc27, an anonymous poster on an internet message board. I do not know personally anyone involved in this case, nor am I directly involved in it in an investigatory capacity as a judge, attorney, police officer, or social worker. Nor am I any of those professions in my day-to-day life apart from my internet reading on this case, and I am not a qualified therapist capable of rendering a qualified opinion - of course this is good, because if I were, I might feel obligated to refrain from doing so as part of my professional ethics, since I have not had an opportunity to sit down and talk directly to any of the involved parties. Since I have no professional code of conduct to live by, I am free to post whatever unqualified, unresearched opinion I happen to have! Thank goodness.

I do, however, have access to the internet, and I have watched a tabloid television program on this case, so I have AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT to gainsay every memory that so-called "victim" Jon Bunting shares with us, even though he was there and I wasn't, even though he has no earthly reason to lie about any of this horror to himself let alone the rest of us, and I DEMAND that my under-researched, unqualified, uninvolved, anonymous opinion be treated with ABSOLUTELY equal weight by all posters on this message board, and if my demands are not met you can be sure I will quickly and loudly accuse everyone of you of shutting down fair, open, and honest debate.

[crystaldawn]

Originally Posted by mozartpc27

I do, however, have access to the internet, and I have watched a tabloid television program on this case, so I have AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT to gainsay every memory that so-called "victim" Jon Bunting shares with us, even though he was there and I wasn't, even though he has no earthly reason to lie about any of this horror to himself let alone the rest of us, and I DEMAND that my under-researched, unqualified, uninvolved, anonymous opinion be treated with ABSOLUTELY equal weight by all posters on this message board, and if my demands are not met you can be sure I will quickly and loudly accuse everyone of you of shutting down fair, open, and honest debate.