This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I have a message for you from inside the Dollhouse."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 30 August 2014




Tweet







December 19 2006

Christian groups fume over Black Christmas. Christian groups have slammed Michelle Trachtenberg's remake of cult 1974 movie Black Christmas, because they find the horror movie "offensive" and "insensitive to Christians".

My opinion is that its just a movie, so they really need to get over it.

"My opinion is that its just a movie, so they really need to get over it."

I completely agree. It's make-believe. Horro movies aren't usually meant to contain some larger than life message. They are what they are. I wasn't actually paying any attention to the trailers for this one until I saw Michelle say "mother..." Now I admit, my interest is a little peaked.

[ edited by Grace on 2006-12-19 15:23 ]
I can understand their concern. I don't agree with it (not even a little) but I can understand it.

I say, good for them. If someone or something threatens something you hold dear, you should voice your opinion because everyone is entitled. If the fans held their tounges when Firefly got cancelled, there probably wouldn't have been a Serenity. I think the trick is knowing when to stop. For example, its great that they have raised awareness and have announced that they are against kids seeing this film. As long as they don't blow up a movie theater in protest, I'd say they have run a successful PR campaign.

Yay Michelle--in the middle of a controversy!
As a Christian, myself, I find this interesting.
Personally, I think it might actually be a good idea to release a slasher flick at Christmas time. From my perspective, the religious significance of Christmas is that God became a person (in the form of Jesus) to live a perfect life on earth so that He could die to pay the penalty for sin and thus provide a way for sinful people to be in the presence of a holy God for all eternity. But, so much of Christmas as it is commonly celebrated is focusing on the good in people and peace on Earth and all of that. And, if people really are good and it's possible to have peace on Earth apart from God, then why would God need to come to Earth as a person in the first place? Reminding Christians (and all people) that there is evil in the world might not be such a bad idea, as it would remind them of the Christian reason for the Christmas holiday.

I also find it interesting (and humourous) that many fundamentalist Christian groups say that Christmas is the most sacred and holy of holidays. But it only seems that these groups mention this around Christmas. Around Easter (which, if I was forced to rank the Christian religious holidays in order of importance, I would put first. But I think that's really a silly endeavour.) many of these same groups get all up in arms about the secularization of Easter and, as part of that, refer to Easter as the most sacred Christian holiday. Seems a little bit hypocritical to me.
So those commercials where the movie voice guy says something of that sort were true? People really were offended about them releasing a "Christmas" movie that violent? I had assumed that was a marketing strategy. Now I have to go see it. I have to admit the preview with Michelle say "mother..." got me interested in this movie.

Favorite quote from the article
The movie industry has really gone too far, and we are sending out an e-mail asking people to discourage others, especially young people, from seeing it.

Well it's rated R so I'm assuming the guy that sells the tickets is going to discourage anyone under 17.

For the record one of my favorite horror stories, that was done in two different versions of of the Tales from the Crypt movies from the 70's and if I'm not mistaken originally appeared in an EC comics story involves an escaped mental patient dressed as Santa during the holidays.

[ edited by war_machine on 2006-12-19 16:07 ]
Black Christmas has had the worst reviews for a film I've seen in ages. They need all the publicity they can get (see cynical marketing works).
Oh, of course, Simon. Was there ever any doubt that this movie would suck? (No offense to Michelle, but yeesh it looks horrible.)
I have no issue with them drawing attention to their concerns, I do have issue with them lobbying to ban it because they disagree with its contents. So far it seems they're staying on the right side of that line, in which case fair play to them.

(if I wanted to publicly decry the hijacking of an ancient pagan festival by Christians i'd be within my rights to do so, even if I wouldn't get many listeners, why shouldn't they have the same right of public expression ?)

Reviews wise Jonathan Ross (one of the better known and regarded UK film critics) thought it was OK, at least a cut above a lot of the recent remakes and he's quite the horror fan so it might mean something.

(FWIW, BTW, I think the thing about Wal-mart employees having to say 'Merry Christmas' because of some lobby group is a bloody disgrace though)
What *I* want to know, as a Jew and a horror fan, is why haven't they made "Black Hanukkah?!!" Where are MY rights to a bloody awful holiday film?! The killing potential of poisoned latkes, dagger-embellished dreidels and flame-throwing menorahs has been overlooked, and I think it's an anti-Semitic conspiracy! *tongue firmly in cheek*

Since this seems to be as good a place to say this as any, here's to all my friends at Whedonesque having a wonderful, joyous and peaceful holiday, whichever and if you celebrate, and a lovely winter/summer depending on which part of the world you're in. :-)
Every year, Adam Sandler makes a Hanukkah movie - is that Black enough for you, OzLady? :)

His don't involve guns and most of them are usually PG13 but I'm sure it'll escalate sooner or later.

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza and bah humbug to all of you who hate Christmas, though I doubt there are any of those here.

RE: the Christian group -- I get it, I understand why they're upset. But to me, the spirituality in Christmas has turned into a more personal thing....religious people celebrate it religiously, nonreligious people celebrate it as a tradition. Because of this, how can you possibly take offense for one person's (perhaps) interpretation of Christmas as a nonreligious holiday? As far as religious holidays go, I put Easter over Christmas.
OzLady, I'm with you... actually, we already have a gruesome story for Hanukkah - meet Judith.
That's funny!

I don't recall this furor over the original '74 film but then there wasn't anyone as high profile as Michelle in it.
I'm more or less Catholic, and this Christian group annoys me almost as much as atheists who demand a tree be taken down because it offends them. It's a horror movie. (Sarcastically) Big deal. Move on. People can tolerate each other's beliefs just a little... can't they!?
I'm a conservative Catholic, and I don't understand these protests at all. The movie takes place during Christmas, horrible dark things happen (as some inevitably, sadly will occur this Christmas).

It's not an attack on Christmas or Christianity in general...as mikejer says, it's a horror movie, nothing more or less. These folks need some perspective, and in a hurry.
While I don't put myself quite fully in the camp of "hating Christmas" I must say that I find it hypocritical of them to say:
“It’s in bad taste. Not only does it send a bad message, it’s the further degradation of our holiday.”

“Christmas is one of our holiest of days,” she said. “It is galling that the movie industry would try to destroy the true meaning of Christmas by (releasing) a horror film on that day.”
Afraid not, seeing as it is a Pagan festival that was stolen by Christians. I thought Christians were against stealing? Aren't thieves meant to go to hell? Each to their own, but seeing as at least twice in history christian countries have made it illegal to celebrate the festival because of its pagan origins you'd of thunk members of churches would learn to move on and leave the winter solstice to those who at least have a right to claim that time of years as theirs.
My apologies to those of you who consider yourselves Christians and are offended by that opinion.

Bah humbug! ;-)
Both the film makers and the protesting groups get publicity. Everybody wins (apart from the people who watch the movie).

And StevieB, you might want to cut down on the hyerbole here, we're not RantyMcRantyesque.com.
Afraid not, seeing as it is a Pagan festival that was stolen by Christians.

Ah, not stolen. 'Commandeered'. That sounds much less...stealy.

But yeah, I was going to say the same thing!
RantyMcRantyesque.com is an AWESOME website! :P
I don't want to start a flame war on what incident nourished Christmas, but if memory serves, Christians took over a Roman holiday in the 2nd century (because they wanted to celebrate too, during some big Roman winter festivities) while still a little sect and prohibited (persecution depending on the Caesar)... at least that's what I learned in Latin (or was it Religion) class a few years back.

I'm quite sure, I won't watch the movie, no matter how much publicity they make, because (a) there won't be a frikkin' theater in 200 km-radius (and a few mountains in between) which will be showing the flic (that was a BIG problem with the BDM), (b) it doesn't interest me too much.

btw, the real horror is still the Last-Christmas video by Wham! couldn't start concerned Christian a petition against that, or maybe a press conference with, let's say, the Pope? Where's the power to ban something when you really need it?

[ edited by bookworm on 2006-12-19 19:51 ]
Eh, comandeered is still a bit strong. Christmas was started as a competing feast to Saturnalia, as a replacement for the socially important midwinter feast in the lives of recently-converted pagans. The real questionably ethical part of that whole arrangement was whether whomever originated Christmas was acting unacceptably deceptively. For those of you not familiar with the Christian scriptures, of the four gospels, only two mention Jesus' birth/infancy, and Luke indicates that shepherds were keeping watch over their flocks by night (Luke 2:8), which is not consistent with a December birth, while Matthew gives no seasonal indications at all.

Having said all that, I genuinely fail to see what the big deal is. I think the convert-'em-or-kill-'em Left Behind video game (which has also been in the news recently) is far, far more personally offensive to my Christian faith. Horror movies as a whole profane life and present evil as essentially unstoppable and unconquerable, which is at odds with a conventional Christian worldview no matter what the season. But, I'll certainly concede that a heroine who simply prays to banish supernatural evil would be far less entertaining than one who uses Tae Kwon Do, swords, and crossbows, which is why I and a large number of other Christians in the Buffy/Angel fandom don't mind it: it's fun entertainment, even if Joss couldn't write an accurately or convincingly Christian character to save his own life.
Trying hard not to be ranty, but a person must have a pretty shaky faith if it can be destroyed by a MOVIE. This gets me everytime a religious group has an 'outcry' about something. They really can't have much faith in their particular dear and fluffy lord if they think a song/tv show/film/book could have a damaging effect on him/her/it. If certain religious groups don't like it for whatever reason, then they don't have to go watch it. Leave everyone else to make their own personal choice.

Just my opinion. I'm not judging anyone.
I'm an atheist and I love Christmas - the trees, decorations, presents, holiday themed slasher movies... If the Christians don't approve of this movie, I might have attained an interest to see it.
To be honest, it is IMDB reporting this one. They seem to have a quote from one organisation. It's a bit like the Daily Mail in the UK, where they ring every organisation they can think of and explain half the story, and try and get any of them to be outraged about it.

Also, by getting people to send emails saying NOT to go see it, you're actually pretty much guarenteeing ticket sales will go up. The easiest way to make a film must-see is to try to ban something.
Where was the outrage in 1974?

If they're mad about the release date, they are two years late. Horror movies have hit on Christmas day for years. Darkness in '04, Wolf Creek in '05. For some reason, it's a profitable holiday for horror.
There is nothing "holy" about the mass consumerism that Christmas has become. I really like the chance to give my friends gifts. ( It would be a little creepifying without the holiday for an excuse.)
You know crime increases dramatically during the holiday season? We're anti-crime because it totally wrecks the spirit of Christmas!

Actually, crime increases during winter months, so maybe we should target December as a problem area for peace and goodwill toward all men. I nominate that Christmas should be moved to June and to Hawaii.
much to the horror of some Christians

The most beautifully subtle line ever.
Being a good god-fearing atheist myself, I find this discussion becoming more like the Christmas episode of Studio 60. Face it, this time of year it doesn't take much to set off the fundamentalists of either stripe. The rest of us should just ignore them and get together with friends and family, enjoying the season for what it really is -- whatever the hell you want it to be.
Silent Night, Deadly Night

Oh yeah.
I saw a new trailer for the movie on tv last night. They are now refering to this outcry in the commercials. Undoubtably, making teens who previously had no interest, now want to see it. Won't these groups ever learn?

If they're mad about the release date, they are two years late. Horror movies have hit on Christmas day for years. Darkness in '04, Wolf Creek in '05. For some reason, it's a profitable holiday for horror

Well, I think they know full well this movie is terrible, but damning anyone connected with it gives them attention, superiority, and their names in the paper or Fox News Network. The latter is what really matters to them. If they're worried movie-goers will commit an unforgivable sin, and waste nine bucks, watching "Black Christmas", they should nudge them to the "Nativity Story" or get them to rent "A Christmas Carol". They'll save their soul and a little cash. But I guess they think it's easier calling Hollywood Sodom and Gomorrah over a movie that's going to be snubbed in favor of "Dreamgirls" anyway.

[ edited by impalergeneral on 2006-12-19 20:58 ]

[ edited by impalergeneral on 2006-12-19 20:59 ]
If they're worried movie-goers will commit an unforgivable sin, and waste nine bucks, watching "Black Christmas", they should nudge them to the "Nativity Story"

Hey, one sin isn't better than the other. ;)

I actually went to a child's Nativity play the other day. The first 29 minutes involved the children dressed as cats, ducks and mice, and then 1 minute before the end a baby appeared. It is... impressive, actually, but probably a little too progressive a tale (in that it had nothing to do with anything).


[ edited by Simon on 2006-12-19 21:24 ]
"you should voice your opinion because everyone is entitled."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but sometimes I honestly feel like people should ask themselves NOT if they could say something but whether they should say something. As Saje said, I understand voicing concern over something but trying to get that thing banned because you dont agree with it, screams of censorship, but even more that, it seems to that we have regressed as a society, in an age where we think we are more and more enlightened.

In the Honeymooners, when Ralph says pretty much anything to Alice, if you think about it he is claiming that he is going to beat his wife. But thats the thing, he is the butt of that joke, he is the idiot who wants to hit his wife, and I think people understood that. Furthermore, in All in the Family, Archie was a racist, but the difference is that Archie is the butt of the joke for being a racist, and that was the point. But here is my question, would shows like that be allowed on network TV today? I highly doubt it, and in that sense, I think our society has regressed to the point where our PC culture is so engrained in this idea that EVERYONE has a voice and that if even a few people are offended, then we clearly cant do something. Sure we can complain, we can acquiesce to those who scream the loudest, and we all can give our opinions, but here is the thing. Some people are wrong and some people shouldnt speak. Yeah they could speak but they really shouldnt...

I dont have a problem with others having a problem with the movie, but you know what? You have the right not to go to the movie, as I wont be going, you have the right to change the channel, and you have the right to protest, but you do not have the right to tell ME that I cant go or that I have to change the channel. Thats not how this thing works...
I wish I could find the editorial I read a few years back that discussed the horror genre as being the most Christian of movie genres. One of the main arguments was that horror deals more with the sinful nature of humans than other types of films. There were several other interesting points raised as well.

As a Christian myself, I say yay for thought-provoking articles that foster calm and level-headed discussions, boo for "THIS MOVIE/BOOK I HAVEN'T SEEN/READ BUT AM ASSUMING INCLUDES _________ WILL CORRUPT YOOOOOOOOOOU! UNCLEEEEEEEAN!"

[ edited by Lady Brick on 2006-12-19 21:26 ]
For many years now Christianity has found it difficult to affirm its religious authority through the medium of theology.
Now it just asks for equal treatment and the right not to be offended.
I take it this group has not even seen a sneak preview of the film. They only object to it on pure principle? (Well, I still won't see the live-action version of The Grinch but in my mind [of course] that's entirely different).

It would seem their efforts would be better suited to complaining about a film like Apocalypto (but they won't because his style of directing appeals to their sensibilities). I read a review of it that almost had me gagging.
I saw a new trailer for the movie on tv last night. They are now refering to this outcry in the commercials. Undoubtably, making teens who previously had no interest, now want to see it. Won't these groups ever learn?


This simply reinforces my suspicions that someone is astroturfing a controversy in the interest of arousing interest in an otherwise dismal and forgettable horror movie.
"Some people are wrong and some people shouldnt speak. Yeah they could speak but they really shouldnt..."

Ahh the can of worm that is opening in my head right now. Fairness Girl is rather intensly standing at alert ready to burst forth and I am having a very hard time containing her.

I think people should speak up if they object to something. Obviously if they do object *they* do not think they are wrong. Stay on the peaceful and respectful of others side of the line and don't cross it, but speak up. I might hate the opinion, but they have a right and perhaps a duty to express it.

I have not read the link yet, and it does not sound very well thought out, but they are free to object to...whatever.
Whether the movie is any good or not is not the subject (and, I've never seen it so I can't comment). Yet, once again, a group gets offended by a subject and wants it outlawed to all the masses. (Sigh)The point is, why watch a movie that you may find disturbing for whatever reasons. I certainly wouldn't do so myself. And I would not have a problem if people wanted to see the movie for the very same reasons. "To each, their own".

Kinda' reminds me of, "If you don't like what's on television, change the channel!"

Guess this debate will live on.....
Reviews wise Jonathan Ross (one of the better known and regarded UK film critics) thought it was OK, at least a cut above a lot of the recent remakes and he's quite the horror fan so it might mean something


It should be noted that is the UK version of the movie.According to reports they have done substantial re-edits to the US version , for example MT's character treatment is different , and apparently the edits are not for the better and added a new ending
According to reports they have done substantial re-edits to the US version


That doesn't usually happen. Does it? Seems an incredibly odd thing for there to be a US ending and a rest of the world ending.
I hate The Weinstein Company. Hate, hate, hate. I hate them more than I hate The Grudge. They always butcher their horror films due to their lack of confidence. What do Black Christmas, Pulse, and any number of similar horror films have in common? They were butchered in reshoots by the Weinsteins.
Simon, The Descent had a different ending in U.S. theaters. After I saw the movie, someone posted a YouTube link to the original ending, which actually made much more sense, and gave the story a lot more depth. I was pretty frustrated that I didn't get the full movie that I paid for.
One of my professors always says that whether you choose to watch something disturbing is up to you, but you have to realize that when you put something like that in your mind, it doesn't just leave. That said, I love horror movies and I certainly will NOT be seeing this one -- I value my $$ and have not spent it on many horror movies lately, as there haven't been any which actually grab my attention. I don't enjoy slasher flicks -- I much prefer suspense horror.

ETA" I wanted to say also that while I may not be seeing Black Christmas, I certainly will try to see White Noise 2. Why? The first one freaked me out a bit and I don't even like Michael Keaton. What's going to happen if there's an actor I really really like? Once I see it, don't expect me to come out of my room for a few days. I'll be the one clutching her blankie.

[ edited by Browncoat on 2006-12-19 23:40 ]
Yeah, UK reviews haven't actually been bad considering the type of film. I was wondering if the US release was butchered. I know they had a *VERY* tight release schedule due to various things.
This whole thing made me think of a scene from Arrested Development.

Movie Passerby: What are you guys protesting?

Ann: It's a disgusting movie about cousins who are into each other.

Movie Passerby: Are there any more seats?

Maeby: Yeah. It's the best 52 minutes you'll spend all day.

Ann: Oh, no, we're making it worse! Prepare to be swallowed into the depths of hell.
Simon said:
And StevieB, you might want to cut down on the hyerbole here, we're not RantyMcRantyesque.com.

My apologies. 8 - )
Wow. Being a Christian, I am not offended. What I don't get though is that it is coming out Christmas Day when the events of the original 1974 Canadian horror film were December 23rd and 24th. Seems like it would have made more money if it opened this Friday, the 22nd. Now I have to wait until the 27th or even after the New Year to see it.

I watched the original last night and didn't find it so bad. I was more offended by the language they used, but it was understandable as it WAS rated R. Then I got to thinking "well, in today's day and age they're going to up the fake violence". But that's fun for me. Although after reading someone's comment about them changing Michelle Trachtenberg's character's death makes me sad because I had heard some really interesting things about her demise.
This whole thing made me think of a scene from Arrested Development.


It reminded me of that scene from Father Ted. "Careful now!". "Down with this sort of thing!".
I was pretty frustrated that I didn't get the full movie that I paid for.

That's interesting you say that ESG. I haven't seen the US ending but I did see an interview with Neil Marshall the writer/director where he talked about it and it was done with his full participation, was in fact an ending he'd considered for the UK release but hadn't chosen for one reason or another (I got the impression the US one might be slightly more upbeat ?).

(BTW, a few people have mentioned the banning issue for 'Black Christmas' and cos I may have inadvertently started the idea rolling I reckon it's worth pointing out in the interests of fairness that nowhere in the article does anyone call for a ban, just a boycott by Christians which i've no problem with since it's obviously up to them what they watch)
Hands down, this is the finest room in the world! The discussions are so good, I even find myself sidetracked.

Where were we? Fireants 6 vs wasps 4?
The U.S. Descent ending isn't any more upbeat. It just implies crazyness vs. death (it ends before the waking back up in the cave).
OK, so let me preface this by saying I'm Jewish. This has nothing to do with anything, but Happy Hannukah everyone! To be honest, I think this argument is really ridiculous. The holiday season is the major time of the year for movies. Tons come out, both the future oscar winners and the absolute crap. It's an indefensible argument that a horror film should be banned because it came out during the most important time of the year for films. Now, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as long as no one is hurt, I don't care that this group has such an issue with "Black Christmas." But hopefully they also have a problem with the some total of crap that has come out that's exploited the Christmas holiday. Think "reindeer games." Think "unaccompanied minors." Think that romantic comedy with Ben Affleck. You have to have as big a problem with that or you're confusing higher moral issues with personal taste. I won't see this either, but I don't think it's any more offensive to Christian ideology than some of the other Christmas themed crap I've seen.
There's a romantic comedy with Ben Affleck? Why isn't someone on the banning bandwagon for THAT?!

BoltRider, good comments! I agree -- they're entitled to their opinion and I don't find it terribly offensive. Now, about that Ben Affleck movie...
Lest anyone forget, as I've seen several people do on this thread (even after Saje spoke up), this group is calling for a boycott of the film. A boycott is not the same thing as a ban. If they were calling for a ban, I would be criticizing them too. As it is, they're well within their rights (well, they'd be within their rights the other way too, what with freedom of speech and all). So I'm asking everyone who posts on this thread, please, don't confuse the two concepts mentioned above.

Actually, I think I'm going to join them in their boycott...not because I agree with them, but because after all the bad reviews Black Christmas has gotten, I think my eight bucks would be better spent on Rocky Balboa. Sorry, Michelle...but if it's any consolation, I saw Ice Princess three times, and I keep buying copies of both Ice Princess amd Eurotrip to give to friends.

(ETA: Yes, I really just said I'd rather see a geriatric Sly Stallone take a pounding than watch our lovely young Miss Trachtenberg battle the forces of evil. The CAT scan is scheduled for tomorrow.)

[ edited by BAFfler on 2006-12-20 02:51 ]
"(ETA: Yes, I really just said I'd rather see a geriatric Sly Stallone take a pounding than watch our lovely young Miss Trachtenberg battle the forces of evil. The CAT scan is scheduled for tomorrow.)"

Thats not crazy Baffler, thats quite sane, and exactly what I will be doing. But then the Rocky movies are 4 of the greatest movies ever (the 5th doesnt exist), and critics seem to love this final installment.
Whatever. I'm going to see Children of Men Christmas Day.
Madhatter - you were asking where we were in this conversation? Last I checked they were trying to decide if Ben was really Glory. Still no verdict yet.
Browncoat: "One of my professors always says that whether you choose to watch something disturbing is up to you, but you have to realize that when you put something like that in your mind, it doesn't just leave..."

Truer words were ne'er spoke - this is one of the reasons I see so few horror or truly creepifyin' movies. It took me years to lessen the impact of the harsher images from Silence of the Lambs. *shudders* And some of them still have the power to give me the willies...

gingeriffic, this is absolutely positively the first time I have seen the story of Judith, my adopted matron saint, linked to from whedonesque. Since she is in the Apocrypha, it is rare that I run across someone that knows her - unless maybe they've seen the Gentileschi or the Caravaggio paintings. Though I was middle-named after Dame Judith Anderson, and not this Judith, I have re-written my personal mythology to include this heroine, one of the three female Jewish Worthies.

About the boycott? So *yawn* whatever whatever. People are free to boycott whatever they like, naturally, but since, as has been said, these kind of boycotts only increase attendance at the boycotted, one has to wonder about either the wisdom or the intent of the boycott...
Am I crazy, QG, or does Judith's story (thanks for the link, gingeriffic!) sound like something a certain slayer would do? ;-)

Good a time as any -- alphabetically, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Kwanzaa, Whedonesquers! :-)
Ummm, okay. Hundreds of thousands have died and continue to die in Iraq and Sudan, and this group is upset over a teen horror flick?!
*sigh* Things such as this only serve to remind me why I abandoned
organized religion so long ago. I only wish that there actually were a Jesus still kicking around in the cosmos. His so-called followers could use a sandal up their collective asses. Merry X-mas.
Well that's hardly fair. I mean, to equate complaints over a movie with objectionable content or for objectionable reasons with people dying in the world -- well, let's all ignore the Michael Richards racial comments problem, there are people dying in the world for heaven's sake.

I just think that there are causes for every group (some just, some not, it's a matter of opinion) but to make it seem like there are bigger fish to fry so everyone has to grab a pan is just silly.
Also, they may be equally (or more) worked up about Iraq and the Sudan but a) that's not really newsworthy since lots of people are and b) it's not going to make it to Whedonesque because, as Simon might say, this isn't Iraqseemstohavenoplanorexitstrategyesque or Sudanesehumanitariancatastropheesque ;).
Though 'Catastropheesque' has a nice ring to it.
Judith is my third favorite heroine in Feminist Judaism, right behind Vashti and Lilith! :-) Thanks gingeriffic and quotergal for the reminder! :-D

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home