Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sing Sing guard gets year in jail for killing 5 kittens
News Radio 88 ^ | 3/22/02

Posted on 03/22/2002 9:49:10 AM PST by areafiftyone

White Plains, New York-AP) -- A former prison guard who killed five kittens in a trash compactor at Sing Sing has been sentenced to a year in jail. A judge said the crime was ``so offensive and so calculated and so gratuitously cruel it diminishes the humanity of everybody.''

Forty-eight-year-old Ronald Hunlock had been convicted of aggravated cruelty to animals. Last March he found an inmate with contraband at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining. He then searched the inmate's cell, found five newborn kittens and their mother and told the inmate to put them in the compactor. The inmate refused, so Hunlock did it himself.

The mother cat escaped but the kittens were crushed. Defense attorney Daniel Gallivan had asked the judge not to impose jail time, and said Hunlock thought the cats were ill and had no other recourse.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
To: Sangamon Kid
The Paradox of "Animal Rights," or, Please Pass the Hamburgers

by David Dieteman

According to some, it is immoral to eat animals. Instead, animal rights advocates contend that animals must be treated ethically, by which it is meant that animals should be treated as if they are human beings.

There is, of course, one large problem with such a view: animals are not human beings.

In the process of proposing such silliness, animal rights advocates destroy the rational distinction between man and the rest of the animal kingdom. In doing so, they not only abuse reason, but dullen the moral senses which protect human beings from abuse.

First, consider the idea that human beings must act ethically toward animals. Although this might sound unobjectionable at first – who, after all, condones the pointless torture of animals? – the Devil is in the details. What the animal rights crowd means is not that one should not be cruel to animals, but rather than animals should be treated like your mother, i.e., like fellow human beings. By way of rebuttal, consider the following anecdote from the life of Ben Franklin. As Jeffrey Smith notes in Franklin and Bache: Envisioning the Enlightened Republic, Franklin was a vegetarian in his youth, "believing that killing animals was 'a kind of unprovok'd Murder.' Later, however, Franklin "was tempted by the smell of fish being fried. Having seen small fish in the stomachs of fish being prepared, he decided he could eat them if they ate each other."

This anecdote gets to the heart of the silliness of "animal rights." Animals do not treat each other as if they had rights, i.e., they do not conform themselves to human moral conduct. Were a man to eat another man, in the way in which a large fish eats a smaller fish, this would be the crime of murder. And yet no one seriously contends that a fish commits a crime by eating another fish. Animals eat other animals. So long as they do so, there is no rational justification for human beings not to eat animals as well. Humanity faces a moral decision: imprison all predators, or pass the hamburgers.

Similarly, if animals are to be treated ethically, then human beings are entitled (in the strong sense of the term) to expect ethical treatment in return. For that matter, animals should be required to serve on juries like other citizens, and pay their taxes. They can earn a living, rather than simply take, take, take all the time. We should expect them to go to church, rather than laying around at home or running around the yard all weekend.

Bears eat other animals. Bears also eat fish. That being said, there is no reason why I cannot eat the same type of animals eaten by the bear, or the same fish. There is similarly no reason why I cannot morally kill and eat the bear. Fair is fair.

More importantly, in seeking to have human beings treat animals as if they are human beings, the animal rights movement defeats its own arguments. In other words, the animal rights sophists demonstrate their own lack of understanding of morality by arguing that morality should extend to non-moral beings, namely, animals.

One of my friends, who is an avid hunter, has a ready reply when anti-hunting types ask if he shoots "innocent" animals. "No," he replies, "only the guilty ones." The point is that the concepts of guilt and innocence do not apply to animals. The net effect of the animal rights movement, then, is not to do the impossible, i.e., to raise animals to the level of the human, but to lower humans to the level of the merely animal. The result of Peter Singer's claim that "a dog is a rat is a pig is a boy" is that children are now exterminated as if they were rats. Abortion on demand, anyone?

One of the strangest cases that I read in law school was Taylor v. Johnston, 15 Cal.3d 130, 123 Cal. Rptr. 641, 539 P.2d 425 (1975). Although it is a breach of contract case, it stands out in my memory because it was a case concerning horse abortions. Yes, horses get aborted. In particular, horses are aborted in the case of twinning. As the court wrote,

Shortly after their breeding, it was discovered that both mares were pregnant with twins. In thoroughbred racing twins are considered undesirable since they endanger the mare and are themselves seldom valuable for racing. Both mares were therefore aborted. However, plaintiff was not required to pay the $20,000 stud fees for Chateaugay's services because neither mare delivered a live foal.

Where does the animal rights crowd come down on horse abortion? One wonders.

Mr. Dieteman is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America. This article first appeared on the Lew Rockwell website (www.lewrockwell.com) on August 20, 2001.

51 posted on 03/22/2002 11:02:05 AM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: John O
You can according to the constitution. Animals are property. How you deal with your property is up to you.

Incorrect. You may not utilize your property in such a way as to present undue dangers for others; for example, you may not set fire to your house arguing that it is your property and you may deal with it as you wish. You may not torture animals or engage them in animal fighting contests.

The Constitution provides mechanisms for writing laws, and laws have been written to outlaw some of the behaviors described above. Since the Supreme Court has not stricken these laws down as unconstitutional, it is assumed by the law enforcement agencies and courts that they are constitutional.

52 posted on 03/22/2002 11:04:14 AM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
"Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deely buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals."
53 posted on 03/22/2002 11:04:44 AM PST by Shar1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
"Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals."
54 posted on 03/22/2002 11:06:40 AM PST by Shar1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jerrymdss
You missed the point.
55 posted on 03/22/2002 11:08:56 AM PST by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
The Dietman piece on how animal protection laws "dullen" the moral senses rests on a pretty flimsy premise -- that animals don't/can't act morally toward us, so we don't need to act morally toward them either. There are plenty of examples of those who we treat morally even if they don't (rules of war, which we observe but our enemies don't) or can't (babies, for example) treat us the same way.
56 posted on 03/22/2002 11:14:10 AM PST by triplejake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
So you blame the theory of evolution for people believing that animal abusers should be punished?

People should be punished for damaging or destroying another man's property. And I do see the rise of the "animal rights" movement as a culmunation of decades of evolutionary thought. Why is that so difficult to understand? We have already passed the point where many consider animals more important than humans.

57 posted on 03/22/2002 11:16:27 AM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: John O
A cat is a,domestic animal living with or under the care of people. To care for a domestic animal does not include aberant behavior,like throwing them into a trash compactor. Deviant is how I would describe any one who would do this to five kittens. Jeffery Dahlmer exhibited this type of behavior toward dogs as a child. From what little I know on the subject, this is a common characteristic in phychotic's.
58 posted on 03/22/2002 11:24:29 AM PST by MaggieMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Shar1
"Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals children in the womb."
59 posted on 03/22/2002 11:24:55 AM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
This is a horrible thing to do to defenseless animals....a year in prison is not enough....he should have been sentenced to having his hand stuck in the same trash compactor and see what it felt like to be crushed....
60 posted on 03/22/2002 11:25:28 AM PST by little-e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
Deviant is how I would describe any one who would do this to five kittens.

Deviant - yes. Criminal - no.

61 posted on 03/22/2002 11:27:29 AM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: little-e
...he should have been sentenced to having his hand stuck in the same trash compactor and see what it felt like to be crushed.

And stooping to his level, you would be just as cruel and cold-hearted.

62 posted on 03/22/2002 11:34:31 AM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
I HATE cats; therefore this incident doesn't bother me at all except the jail sentence for the guy that compacted the cats. God gave man dominion over beasts, especially cats.
63 posted on 03/22/2002 11:34:37 AM PST by Renatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Reading all these posts, I can't believe that there are people here that believe cruelty to animals should go unpunished.
Animals are not property, they are living beings, cats are mammals (like us) who feel pain just like we do, when they get crushed in a garbage compactor (sp?)
I might sound like a bleeding heart lib on this one, but jeez...
64 posted on 03/22/2002 11:47:29 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
This is indeed an offense which breaks a law. Therefore it is criminal by definition.
65 posted on 03/22/2002 11:47:45 AM PST by MaggieMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: John O
What alternate reality do you live in? Animals are either ferrel or property, but the law acknowleges the obvious; it is not only possible to be cruel to animals, but it can be criminal to treat animals cruelly. To believe otherwise is to ignore reality. Animals have hearts, brains, nerve endings (some moreso than others). They have the capacity to suffer. As their stewards we are to treat them humanely and minimize their suffering when possible.
66 posted on 03/22/2002 11:49:37 AM PST by SarahW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
Begone, troll. Punishing the guilty (of more than he was charged with, actually -- as I explained earlier, he ought to have been charged with terroristic threat) is not morally equivalent to punishing at random, unless you're one of those idiots who thinks that bombing the Talibastards was no different from perpetrating the 9/11 Massacre.
67 posted on 03/22/2002 11:50:51 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Renatus
More of Renatus' moral thought here.
68 posted on 03/22/2002 11:55:24 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: John O
sending someone to prison for a year for killing some kittens is utterly useless

I daresay that a prison guard with this kind of reputation for brutality will need rather less than the full year of feeding....

69 posted on 03/22/2002 11:57:31 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
This is indeed an offense which breaks a law. Therefore it is criminal by definition.

You haven't followed my logic...I'll say it again, or rather make it clearer. His behavior is deviant, but only criminal if the kittens were another person's property. See the difference?

70 posted on 03/22/2002 12:00:00 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Begone, troll. Punishing the guilty (of more than he was charged with, actually -- as I explained earlier, he ought to have been charged with terroristic threat) is not morally equivalent to punishing at random, unless you're one of those idiots who thinks that bombing the Talibastards was no different from perpetrating the 9/11 Massacre.

Begone, troll? What in h*ll are you talking about?

71 posted on 03/22/2002 12:04:27 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
As a lay person I can support the decision and sentencing of this prison guard. But, I also understand,that there are very strict interpretations of what constitutes criminal intent, which may be your frustration, reguarding my views on this thread. Flame away.
72 posted on 03/22/2002 12:23:07 PM PST by MaggieMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
You worked at a state hospital in Texas? I thought you sounded familiar!!

Do you remember Julius Caesar? I recall that you were a very fine centurion, but not as good as Gabby Hays or Mr. Green Jeans. Oh, the word for today is "spindle." Radio.......

73 posted on 03/22/2002 12:38:26 PM PST by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
That's right....I sure would be....
74 posted on 03/22/2002 12:40:13 PM PST by little-e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
I thought I was being rather kind...at first I was going to suggest having the guard stick his head in the compactor....
75 posted on 03/22/2002 12:45:45 PM PST by little-e
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
My mother who is now dead loved her children deeply and taught us to love God and neighbor. She taught us our prayers and a deep love and respect for the Roman Catholic Church, which is the greatest gift she and my dad handed on to us. Anyhow, once her grandchildren were visiting her and discovered a nest of little kittens in an abandoned shed nearby. The children played with the kitten and they all got ringworm. My mother got a shovel, went over to the cats and bashed all their heads in and then buried them. Now, I suppose you will tell me that she should have gone to jail for her actions. BS!
76 posted on 03/22/2002 12:46:15 PM PST by Renatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
You haven't followed my logic...I'll say it again, or rather make it clearer. His behavior is deviant, but only criminal if the kittens were another person's property. See the difference?

No. If the thing had put kittens he purchased into a trash compactor alive, he would still have been guilty of breaking the law. There are laws against animal cruelty : BY LAW, if you own animals , you are required to give them adequate food, shelter, and medical care, and you are not allowed to abuse them physically. If you starve your animal, leave them outside without shelter in bad weather, let injuries or illnesses go untreated, or beat them, you can and will be punished. Punishments include confiscation of animals, fines, probation, jail time, and being forbidden by law to own animals for a certain period (Usually 5 years, but sometimes longer).

I don't know where some freepers (not you, kid ; others on this thread) get the idea that they can do "whatever they want" with their own animals, when the law clearly states animal abuse is a crime, whether they own the animal or not. If any freeper doubts me, please : Go find a stray dog, and let people see you beat it, starve it, torture it, maim it, set it on fire-whatever. When the police come for you, tell themn you own the dog, and have the right to treat it in that matter. Tell the same thing to the judge. See you in a year or so.

77 posted on 03/22/2002 12:52:55 PM PST by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
Flame away.

I'm not sure why you think I would do so. I'm not upset with anything you've posted. Besides, the act of flaming suggests that someone has already lost the debate and resorts to a baser form of argument. I'll let others stoop to that.

You are correct in that I am frustrated with a society that devalues human life, calls "evil good, and good evil", that twists the meaninig of words to promote their agenda, and rips the innocence from our children at the earliest possible age.

78 posted on 03/22/2002 12:57:01 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: little-e
This is a horrible thing to do to defenseless animals....a year in prison is not enough....he should have been sentenced to having his hand stuck in the same trash compactor and see what it felt like to be crushed....

A fraternity brother's dad had run a punch-press at a box plant his adult life, was up in the union, got me a summer job to help defray exorbitant college tuition.

I was operator of the slitter and baler for the scrap produced by the box plant for one shift one summer.

Defective sheets were fed into the slitter (scissor-like rotary knives on an eight-foot long, four-inch diameter steel shaft). These strips were sucked into a seven bladed steel fan run by an electric motor the size of a wood stove. These playing card-size pieces were sucked up a twelve-inch pipe to the roof collector cone fed by other pipe runs from machines throughout the plant.

A blizzard of these pieces fell down the two-foot-square chute into the space ahead of the baling ram. An electric eye would signal the ram that the chute was full; then it would hydraulically compress the pieces into an eighth of their volume. When a 1,000-lb. block was obtained, five lengths of baling wire were fed around it and tied off. When the steel door was opened the cube was driven onto steel rollers by the compressing ram's action, ready for pickup by forklift to carry to the waiting railroad car.

If the guard is not Roto-Rooteredtm by 12 months with his fan club, I could have fit him into the space in front of the ram. During peak periods it was necessary to climb up, open the door, and stomp down the scrap--when the ram was back, of course. For it would come forward automatically, and would have no compunction about crushing a leg.

Kind of like the guard.

79 posted on 03/22/2002 1:00:25 PM PST by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
Whatever other problems society has don't excuse letting someone who does something you seem to agree is reprehensible go unpunished. And MaggieMay is right that something is criminal pretty much whenever the legislature passes laws saying it is, your property or not.
80 posted on 03/22/2002 1:06:46 PM PST by triplejake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Renatus
I do think that on the farm, cats were used to keep the mice population down,period. How people dealt with kitten/puppy overpopulation was by drowning them.People did not have access to veterinary care. Now, there is a tremendous effort to spay/neuter animals. There are animal shelters in many area's. The actions of this guard were to deposite the mother cat and five kittens in a trash compactor and crush them. There were alternatives a phone call away, he chose the cruelest one. This I believe was what the judge was addressing.
81 posted on 03/22/2002 1:08:47 PM PST by MaggieMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
If the guy found a nest of baby rats would the outcome be the same i.e. a year in jail? If not what's the diffeence?
82 posted on 03/22/2002 1:21:15 PM PST by Renatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Comment #83 Removed by Moderator

To: Renatus
If the guard kept the mother cat and kittens, he wouldn't have to worry about those despicable rats.
84 posted on 03/22/2002 1:24:09 PM PST by MaggieMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MaggieMay
he wouldn't have to worry about those despicable rats.

What's the difference between throwing cute little rats to a cat and throwing despicable little cats into a trash compactor?

85 posted on 03/22/2002 1:29:27 PM PST by Renatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Renatus
I know you are going to call me a coward, but I have to go the bus stop to pick up my son. Like Tom said in the(Tom and Jerry) cartoons, "I just hate those mieces to pieces".
86 posted on 03/22/2002 1:33:26 PM PST by MaggieMay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
Oh all right, Sang. I'm awake--not that I wanted to be. I take it from your response that you're opposed to wanton cruelty too. Okay. Okay. Glad to know it. You don't hafta be so touchy. I think it's that I hate cruelty more than anything. Maybe you do too.
87 posted on 03/22/2002 1:36:20 PM PST by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: triplejake
Whatever other problems society has don't excuse letting someone who does something you seem to agree is reprehensible go unpunished.

Agreed. I have no problems with punishing the guy for the criminal destruction of private property if it applied in this case. But I would ask you this: Who did this man wrong? Did he wrong the inmate, the cats, or just our sensiblities? Was the inmate allowed to have cats? If there was a rule that no pets are allowed, then the inmate had no power of disposition over the cats. Were the cats wronged? Impossible, because cats don't have "rights". So really, that leaves our sensiblities as what suffered the wrong. My sensiblities suffer all the time, but the law should't allow me to receive compensation every time I'm outraged about something.

And MaggieMay is right that something is criminal pretty much whenever the legislature passes laws saying it is, your property or not.

I can't argue with that. I might think the legislature is goofy passing such laws, but even bad law is law nonetheless. But I must add that legislating a standard of "deviancy" and "cruelty" is a slippery slope at best.

88 posted on 03/22/2002 1:42:08 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: John O
While cruelty to animals is a senseless waste of resources, animals are merely property. sending someone to prison for a year for killing some kittens is utterly useless.

It is very useful to lock someone up who needlessly tortures animals, whether or not it's currently constitutional. Every cat ands dog I know agrees with me on this. :^)

89 posted on 03/22/2002 1:46:18 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
OFF TOPIC

By the way, anybody rooting for the politically incorrect Fightin' Illini over Kansas tonight? I hope those Injuns exact cruel and unusual punishment over those cute, feathery, little Jayhawks. ;^)

90 posted on 03/22/2002 1:52:19 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Renatus
I HATE cats; therefore this incident doesn't bother me at all except the jail sentence for the guy that compacted the cats. God gave man dominion over beasts, especially cats.

God also says to observe civil law. And our society and our law has made it clear that useless torture will not be tolerated.

91 posted on 03/22/2002 1:52:29 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
The "victim" is society; we find it disgusting that someone would be so cruel to a living thing, and thus we (through legislatures) make it illegal. You don't need to give cats their own rights to prohibit cruelty to them, whether or not they have owners. There are plenty of other crimes like this where there is no human victim (like drug laws, though that is a very different can of worms).
92 posted on 03/22/2002 1:53:43 PM PST by triplejake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
Are there any trash compactors up in Madison tonight?
93 posted on 03/22/2002 1:54:00 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: Sangamon Kid
Frank Williams & Co are looking mighty good. As an Indiana grad, would be happy to see another Big 10 school in Final 8.
95 posted on 03/22/2002 1:58:10 PM PST by triplejake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
...useless torture will not be tolerated.

Right! I agree! Only profitable tortue should be allowed!

[pssst...#3Fan, just givin' you a hard time! ;^)]

96 posted on 03/22/2002 1:59:04 PM PST by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Renatus
If the guy found a nest of baby rats would the outcome be the same i.e. a year in jail? If not what's the diffeence?

A rat spreads disease, hides and overruns your home. Cats do not spread disease if cared for and will not overrun your home because it will not hide. Killing a rat in such a manner therefore is not useless torture. Killing a cat is.

97 posted on 03/22/2002 1:59:08 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: cactmh
I wonder, too, and hope we will learn more about the inmate. What that guard did was sickening and I'm glad we are to the point in this society that people are insensed about it.

Disposing of unwanted animals used to be cruel and inhumane. It's all so very sad.

98 posted on 03/22/2002 2:00:23 PM PST by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
The guard broke a law and he was tried and convicted in accordance with the law. No big deal.

If there are any further conclusions to be drawn I would say that

- The guard was doing what he did to torture the inmate not the kittens. He was trying to show his power and dominance over the inmate, and to hurt the inmate in a cruel and unusual way. In a way, this is a sort of rape, an act of brutality, power and humiliation.

- My guess would be that prison guards in general don't fare well as part of a general prison population, and a prison guard that became a prisoner in this particular manner will fare particularly poorly precisely because of the above.

99 posted on 03/22/2002 2:00:45 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Sangamon Kid
By the way, anybody rooting for the politically incorrect Fightin' Illini over Kansas tonight? I hope those Injuns exact cruel and unusual punishment over those cute, feathery, little Jayhawks. ;^)

I bet so. :^)

100 posted on 03/22/2002 2:01:46 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson