Heardoc

Sat, Oct 9, 2010 : 12:39 a.m.

@DavidBriegel You expose yourself for what you are. Mr Armstrong's homosexuality does not bother me -- appears to be a problem with Mr Armstrong himself. I also agree with you that the far left wing of the democratic party can never raise it's standards and morality to the level of even a modest conservative -- think Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Elliot Spitzer, Mr Jefferson from TN ($100K in freezer), Timothy Geitner (purposely did not pay taxes), Kwame Kilpatrick, Monica Conyers, and on and on and on......... As far as helping you -- I am always happy to help others such as yourself -- at least now you have a common sense man to assist you with your questions.

David Briegel

Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 4:53 p.m.

Heardoc, Golly, that evil liberal far left wing of the democratic party can't begin to be compared to the nobility of the extremist conservative far right wing of the Repulican party now can it? Sorry Mr Armstrongs homosexuality bothers you. Be happy your heterosexuality doesn't bother anyone like Mr Shirvell. You would not be happy! Tolerance indeed! We also wait for "your understanding" of more of our laws as we are not capable without you!

ann_arbor_guy

Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 2:40 p.m.

Steve, I do not believe anyone on this message board has stated that Andrew or you cannot have your beliefs. The issue with what Andrew is doing is stalking and actively harassing a college student. As stated, we have laws to protect people from such behavior. Also, if Andrew truly felt that he needs to address all public figures with their violations of Christianity, he is going to be a very busy man. Where are all of his other blogs? He should start with his own boss, the Attorney General that violated a commandment. Where is that blog and protesting signs regarding his behavior, talk about a hypocrite. My point is that Andrewss behavior is targeted and bizarre and is outside the boundaries of Christianity, decent behavior and the law.

Steve

Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.

I will preface my forthcoming comments by stating I do not approve of Mr.Shirvell's tactics, which are very similar to the disgusting tactics the Westboro Baptist church employs. To CAHA: In your post you argue that I, others and Mr. Shirvell should not be concerned with Mr. Armstrong's sexual lifestyle. Normally I would agree with you, but because the University of Michigan is a public school of higher education partially funded with state and federal tax dollars Mr. Shirvell, I and others have every right to question the governing activities of the Michigan Assembly president and its assembly members. Mr Shirvell strongly believes that Assembly president Armstrong is engaged in implementing pieces of the radical homosexual agenda at U of M. If that is true? Then the implementation of the agenda may present a moral, psychological and physical threat to the majority of students on campus who are heterosexual, Christian, Muslim, etc.,which may extend to the families of the students. At this time I also wish to address the use of the word "Homophobic". The word has now become a very powerful weapon used against anyone who challenges the public actions of homosexuals. It is used in much the same way the word "racist" is being used by the Democrat party to demean anyone who questions the personal and public acts of African Americans, Hispanics etc. Both words are used to destroy the credibility of the opponents of their racial and sexual agendas. Under the current language use rules I am homophobic and a bigot because I, others and Mr. Shirvell oppose the homosexual lifestyle. I do not oppose homosexuality because I am desperately fighting off forbidden sexual desires towards other men as many have alleged that Mr. Shirvell is. I oppose the homosexual lifestyle because I am a Christian. And as a christian I must conform to the image of my God, Jesus Christ. Consequently, to accept and or practice homosexuality is to commit a cardinal sin and to advocate for the practice of homosexuality is heretical. As Christians, we are called to Christ for the redemption of our sins. Whereupon we receive His and His Fathers divine spirit, we are also at the same time called out of the world into a new life in the spiritual body of Christ. To personally engage in sodomy as Mr. Armstrong is or to advance this sexual lifestyle as Mr. Armstrong is would cause us to be expelled from the body of Christ and to once again be thrust back into our animal body/nature and all that that leads to. In this age of enlightened diversity why are my religious beliefs and social values mocked and label symptomatic of a mental illness? While Mr Armstrong's lifestyle and multiculturalistic values are praised. It seems to me that those multi-culturalists among you who condemn those who support the biblical teaching on homosexuality are the judgmental hypocrites not I or Mr. Shirvell. I am COMMANDED to live my life in accordance to the teachings of my Holy Scriptures as IS MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, yet the doctrinaire multi-culturalists do not honor my culture or its creeds. Yet, you EXPECT me and my children to abandon our belief system and bow to your societal tenets. Why? It is obvious to even the casual reader that you are base hypocrites and not worthy of emulation. In this pluralistic society and under the guiding principles of this government it is my right to live my life as I choose, as it is Mr. Armstrong's right and Mr.Shivell's right within the boundaries of law. It is also my right to engage in spirited public debate upon "public" issues that effect my life, my children's lives and the lives of my Christian brothers and sisters without being vilified for simply expressing the truths of our culture. In closing as mature Christian I take it upon myself to apologize for Mr. Shirvell's decidedly unchristian behavior.

Heardoc

Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:41 a.m.

@mattCooper Just to let you know -- v there has been quite a bit of controversy regarding this particular law and many of the provisions that you have stated are not in fact able to be enforced as they do and have infringed on a person's free speech rights. Nice to cite a law but better to actually understand the law cited.

Heardoc

Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:38 a.m.

The radical left is out in force in Ann Arbor. The problem here is that the balance of thought here on this blog is skewed to the far left branch of the democratic party. Ann Arbor is not mainstream nor does it represent America as a whole. Once a person realizes this fact then all of the statements here against MR Shirvel are better understood. It is apparent that Mr Armstrong is essentially a homosexual first and foremost. Why is he not a student or a person just looking for fun in life-- why is his homosexuality always in the forefront? It makes no sense what he ahs done nor what he has stated he wants t accomplish -- which is all about his homosexuality. If there was a man that was heterosexual and spoke and promoted his heterosexuality i would be just as disappointed as I am with Mr Armstrong. All in all -- this is just pure self promotion on Mr Armstong's part and too much protesting by the far left wing of the democratic party to be taken seriously by middle america.

Matt Cooper

Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 12:45 a.m.

Acording to the Michigan Penal Code, section 750.411h, "Stalking is defined as: (d) Stalking means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested. Also, according to the same statute, "harassment" is defined as: (c) Harassment means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose. Finally, the Micigan Penal Code defines "unconsented contact" as (e) Unconsented contact means any contact with another individual that is initiated or continued without that individual's consent or in disregard of that individual's expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. Unconsented contact includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: (i) Following or appearing within the sight of that individual. (ii) Approaching or confronting that individual in a public place or on private property. (iii) Appearing at that individual's workplace or residence. (iv) Entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual. (v) Contacting that individual by telephone. (vi) Sending mail or electronic communications to that individual. (vii) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual. Mr. Shirvell has most certainly committed a number of acts which directly violate the provisions of 750.411h. Free speech is one thing. Stalking is another. Shirvell should be terminated from his job with the State of Michigan if he insists on following his current course of action.

David Briegel

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 11:55 p.m.

TopCat, I agree with your excellent post! Stephen, You know very well that for those years we were told that our dissent was aiding the enemy and we were "'merica hatin', terrist luvin' defeatists who wanted our nation to lose and our soldiers dead". All we wanted was a little sanity from the party in power and their leaders. Mr Shirvell has the right to babble any ignorant speech he wishes. He doesn't have the right to be taken seriously. He doesn't have the right to stalk and harrass. Despite his foolishness I haven't seen anyone propose to deny his right to speech.

simone66

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:26 p.m.

Keep your chin up Chris Armstrong. Shrivell has proven himself to be an unstable person, and Mike Cox will never be Governor!

Tony Livingston

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 5:41 p.m.

Doesn't anyone think it is wierd that an adult is spending so much time and energy focusing on what a college student is doing? That's like a high school student going back to grade school and complaining about some kid. There is something really strange about this whole thing.

Urban Sombrero

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 5:27 p.m.

There are a lot of us in your corner, Chris. Don't let the meanies get you down. Hopefully, Shirvell gets what's coming to him. (And, I don't mean anything physical, I'd just like to see him lose his job.)

Lokalisierung

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 5:03 p.m.

"Hey Steve R, the Bible says love thy neighbor as thyself, too..." Don't even start getting into that argument. It's silly and never ending.

Lokalisierung

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 5 p.m.

"but when he started appearing outside his house, calling the police about a party, that is stalking." I actually don't know if that is "stalking." I'm more inclined to think it isn't. Annoying, rediculus, crack-potted, yes.

leaguebus

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 4:35 p.m.

Hey Steve R, the Bible says love thy neighbor as thyself, too. It did not say if the neighbor was a certain nationality not to love him, it did not say if their politics were a certain way, not to love him, it did not say if a neighbors sexual orientation was a certain way, not to love him. If Shirvell had only blogged about Mr Armstrong, fine, but when he started appearing outside his house, calling the police about a party, that is stalking. Mr Shirvell should be fired by Cox, unfortunately this will elevate him to hero/martyr status among the lovers of Rush Limbaugh, maybe even get his own show on Fox. For me, one more thing not to not watch.

CAHA

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.

Heardoc, Two questions: 1) Please explain why "the left" (or anyone else) should be tolerant (and understanding and accepting) of bullying. 2) Please explain why Mr. Shirvell's beliefs should be important to (imposed upon) Mr. Armstrong. I'm not understanding your characterization that some how Mr. Shirvell's beliefs are being made "less important" in this situation (how and to whom?).

CAHA

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 4:24 p.m.

Mr. Redder and others, Should Mr. Shirvell choose to apply his understanding of Christian doctrine to his own life more power to him, but I'm at a lost as to why Mr. Armstrong should be subject to Mr. Shirvell's belief system or why he should be forced in emulate Mr. Shirvell's sexual orientation. I'm reminded of Jon Stewart feigning concern about the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts only to exclaim relief when pantomiming receiving clarification that the change in law did not mean he was going to have to "marry gay." If Mr. Shirvell doesn't like homosexuality he doesn't have to engage in it. For someone whose belief system apparently doesn't allow for homosexuality, Mr. Shirvell sure seems to spend a lot of time talking about it. Further, I'm really confused by why Mr. Shirvell would find someone's else's sexual orientation appropriate fodder for conversation..I'm reminded of admonitions about minding one's own business. Of course, regardless of the evident irrationality of spending so much time and effort on something that lies outside Mr. Shirvell's interests and lifestyle, Mr. Shirvell does have the right to say whatever he'd like (within the limits of the law). That means that he is protected from the government infringing on his right to say what he's saying. It does not mean that his speech acts are without consequence...one consequence in this case appears to be public ridicule (he has no legal protection from that). One reason this issues has gained the national spotlight is that Mr. Shirvell appears to have decided to use speech acts to infringe on rights on Mr. Armstrong's rights (this is moving beyond my knowledge of the case and the law, but I think an examination of where Mr. Shirvell's free speech rights end and where Mr. Armstrong's rights to be stalker free begin appears warranted). Another reason is the relative power differential between Mr. Shirvell and Mr. Armstrong making it appear (intentionally or otherwise) as though Mr. Shirvell is "picking on" Mr. Armstrong...perhaps not illegal, but certainly worth examination, especially as Mr. Shirvell can bring to bear the weight of the government should he choose (potentially illegally). My advice to those who oppose homosexuality because of their religious views: 1) don't engage in homosexuality, 2) if you choose to judge others according to your own religious beliefs, you certainly have the right, but expect others will exercise their right to free speech about you, and and 3) expect to be held accountable for using a position of power to inflict your beliefs on others. Finally, if I remember my Bible correctly, there's a whole lot about being nice to people, caring for others, living one's own life well, being humble, how hard it is to "know the mind of God," etc. and only one passage that may or may not be a commentary about homosexuality. Perhaps Mr. Shirvell might be well served to spend some time reading the Bible and reflecting on how it relates to how he's treated Mr. Armstrong.

djm12652

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 4:02 p.m.

Shirvell has the right to say what he wishes by the rights of free speech. He does not have the right to stalk, threaten physical harm, etc. Even if he is a homophobic, he has his rights just like anyone else. But my advice to Mr. Armstrong is simple, words can only hurt one's feelings...if one allows them too. Ignore him and move on. People that would judge you by this guy ranting on are not people you need to have in your life to begin with. If all he does is talk, then no harm can happen unless Mr. Armstrong allows himself to be hurt by these words. It's all about free speech, no matter what or how hateful the words are....

Atticus F.

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 3:49 p.m.

I agree with you Mitch...We need to make sure that the Mike Coxs, and Rick Snyders of this world are not in office in the first place, if they are going to promote people like this into powerful positions.

Lokalisierung

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.

"Can we please ban all hurtful blogs? Thank you. Whatever you do don't go looking for them!" Yes, and let's ban hurtful books too. Shouldn't be too hard to all agree on what is hurtful and what isn't. Oh sure I know, I know, books and blogs are totally differnt somehow.

groland

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 3:43 p.m.

This is not a free speech issue. A citizen has the right to promote his views no matter how abhorrent, but we do not have to keep that citizen in a government position whose primary responsibility is to mete out justice! Imagine if Shirvell made such comments about blacks or Jews, how could he have any credibility as a legal scholar. While we cannot silence him, we can fire him and we must!

Atticus F.

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 3:22 p.m.

As a citizen Shrivell IS entitled to free speech, as is any neo-nazi, or KKK member... But that does not mean that we have to tolerate state officials who participate in this type of racist or homophobic behavior.

Steve

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 2:46 p.m.

I do not believe I was off topic. I stated that I did not agree with Mr. Shirvell's tactics as well as state the reason Mr. Armstrong drew the ire of Mr. Schirvell. I then continued on to present the Christian Bibles perspective on homosexuality for clarity. After all didn't Mr. Shirvell state that he was acting in accordance to the teachings of his faith? Yes, he did. So. No I do not believe I was off topic and the citing of the text was necessary. Consequently, it is my opinion that this news paper did not like the content of my posting and was unfairly censored. Nevertheless I do respect and appreciate your response and explanation.

Jay Thomas

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 2:37 p.m.

Can we please ban all hurtful blogs? Thank you. Whatever you do don't go looking for them!

heartbreakM

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 2:36 p.m.

This notion of free speech is not being interpreted correctly here--I don't sense the masses advocating that Shirvell be 'force-quieted'. I do believe, though, that there are consequences for your actions (or in Shirvell's case, actions AND speech), and as such, Mr. Shirvell has given up his right and privilege to be employed by the state, especially in the attorney general's office. Mr. Cox's arrogance and apparent support of Shirvell speak volumes and I hope that the voters raise their voices and vote him out. He is not being a leader, but by his inaction, rather appears to be sending out a weak homophobic underling to do his fight. Anyone who has finished fifth grade knows that the Nazis targeted minorities they deemed unworthy of life, be it Jews, homosexuals, handicapped, 'asocial' (whatever that is), gypsys--and murdered them or at least imprisoned them. The use of the Nazi symbol in conjunction with homosexual slander is certainly threatening (or even without, but especially together), and Shirvell should pay for that with his job at the least. And Cox has to stop making excuses. What a poor excuse for an attorney general.

Lovaduck

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 1:58 p.m.

How is anyone "attacking" Mr. Shirvill except verbally. That's part of debate. To disagree with someone is not to be intolerant of the person, just of their views. No one here has suggested that Mr. Shirvill be silenced or put in jail. It is Shirvill who has stalked and said obnoxious bigoted things against Mr. Armstrong. People are criticizing him and his views, and the origin of such views, for causing great harm. He's free to reply. That's debate, folks! Whenever you point out inconsistencies or problems with someone's view, people always say, "He has a right to have and express such views." That's true, BUT others also have the right to engage in intellectual combat with him/her and are not guilty of "intolerance".

Heardoc

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.

Where is the tolerance for Mr Shrivel? The left is all about inclusiveness -- what is up here? Appears that Mr Shrivel is in the minority here -- why is the left so intolerant here? Many think Mr Armstrong and his agenda are very obnoxious -- but his rights are and should be protected --why is Mr Shrivel and his beliefs less important than Mr Armstrong? It apparently is not ok to attack Mr Armstrong but it is ok to attack Mr Shrivel -- It appears that the left is only tolerant if you agree with the left-- I thought the left was about understanding and accepting -- i guess it was all a big lie from the left.

jaxie

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.

When Shirvell launched his homophobic attack I was reminded of two histrical events, one from the 20th century and one from this century. When Hitler sent his enforcers after the Jews, homosexuals etc... the question of "where were you" was asked of those who stood by and perhaps thought 'Thank God that wasn't me.' More recently people have asked, "What about those more moderate Muslims who don't denounce their extremist brothers and sisters after 911?" In Shirvell's case one may ask the same of Republican candidates, "Why haven't you exercised your freedom of speech?" I wish I was left with a broader choice than a straight Democratic slate to vote for on Nov 2nd

Bob Needham

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.

Comment removed because it veered off topic into religious texts (You could resubmit without that)

Stephen Landes

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.

@David Briegel How has speech been stifled over the last eight years (I know you mean the during the Bush presidency)? I have not seen or heard of anyone preventing from speaking. The growth of alternative political movements demonstrates how vibrant is our freedom of speech. "Tea Parties" started and "Coffee Parties" started in response; relative success is not a measure of freedom, but of striking a responsive chord. Any perceived stifling of freedom of speech is, in my opinion, a figment of your imagination and an "urban legend".

Top Cat

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 12:34 p.m.

Mr. Armstrong has conducted himself with maturity, dignity and class.

Killroy

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 12:16 p.m.

All the best to Chris Armstrong. Also, Chris, don't judge the entire State on the actions of one. We are actually a good people, a smart people, with the exception of few right wing-nuts.

pseudo

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.

Mr Armstrong: Nicely Done! I am for free speech. I am not for inciting violence. I am not for allowing stalking. Mr. Shirvell has his rights but he also has a public position paid for by my tax dollars and I am pretty sure he's violated several of the rules that come with that office. He has his rights. My hope is that he rightfully, with due process, lose his job - and the platform it gives him.

David Briegel

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.

Sorry folks, this is not a speech issue. This genius has the right to say anything he wants. He does not have the right to obsessively stalk Mr Armstrong. End of story. If Shervill was a gay man stalking a straight Christian I am more that certain that Mr Cox would find a convenient way to terminate his employment! Of course Mr Cox would never knowingly hire a gay man! The comparison to the Bush/Gonzalez inJustice Dept are accurate. Their silly rulings were overruled many times. Far right fundamentalist Christian culture warriors indeed! Stephen, after 8 years of having our speech stifled and marginalized, we don't need a lecture on the first amendment. Stalking is not speech! Nor is it govt gone wrong. It is an abuse of power by govt official(s).

Lovaduck

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 11:47 a.m.

This sort of a thing makes me detest many types of organized religion, though I am myself religious. I have deep skepticism toward "Bible" studies (see other article) since so many conservative religious groups cause self-hatred among LGBT teens and adults leading to suicides. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR BIGOTRY AND INTOLERANCE IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. The problem is not gov't as another said, but Shrivell's RELIGIOUS based views.

donderop

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.

@ Stephen: "If behavior becomes physically threatening we have remedies for that, too." Yes, we do have remedies for that, but in Mr. Armstrong's case it appears to be justice delayed (in the form of a personal protection order) delayed by three weeks. Shirvell's behavior is irrational and alarming, to say the least.

Stephen Landes

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.

@5c0++ H4d13y There are none so illiberal in their thinking as those on the political left who consider themselves "liberal". Freedom of speech is, for them, fine as long as they agree with what is said. I have no liking for what has been said or written about this young man at U of M, but so far it is only one person's opinion and it isn't illegal (yet) to hold or voice an unpopular opinion. The test of our fidelity to the principle of freedom of speech isn't supporting one's right to speak when we agree, but supporting that right even when/if we are disgusted with the thought expressed. If the comments move to slander or libel there are legal remedies for that. If behavior becomes physically threatening we have remedies for that, too. However, limiting speech because we don't like what we're hearing or reading isn't a reasonable remedy.

bugjuice

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 9:11 a.m.

50% of all attorneys graduate in the bottom half of their class.

5c0++ H4d13y

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.

@Carole How do you reconcile your desire to ban speech that is "hurtful" with peoples' right to free speech? Doing what you propose puts a powerful weapon in the hands of those that want to silence their critics. I'm sure Shirvell has read some hurtful things in the comments section here and on facebook. Should he be able to shutdown websites over them? Shirvell doesn't shock me. We've seen his type before and they are becoming the exception. What I find shocking is that an otherwise liberal town is ready to abandon due process and free speech protections because they don't like what someone is saying. The best antidote to hateful speech is more speech not less.

Carpenter Ant

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:47 a.m.

During the Bush/Cheney era, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez wrongfully politicized the US Justice Department by hiring a slew of ultra-conservative lawyers, despite a rule that said a job applicant's political affiliations and views were not to be considered during the hiring process. Many of the lawyers hired by Gonzalez were gradutes of Pat Robertson's Regent University law school, a third-rate law school known for producing far-right fundamentalist Christian culture warriors. It seems that during the past several years, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has wrongfully politicized the Michigan Dept of Attorney General by hiring a slew of ultra-conservative lawyers, despite a Michigan civil service rule that says a job applicant's political affiliations and views are not to be considered during the hiring process. At least some of the lawyers hired by Cox - including Andrew Shirvell - have been graduates of Tom Monaghan's Ave Maria law school, a third-rate law school know for producing far-right fundamentalist Christian culture warriors. Mike Cox is the Alberto Gonzalez of Michigan.

Carole

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:29 a.m.

Along with freedom of speech, goes the responsibility of freedom of speech. No individual should have the right to post on a blog, facebook or whatever information that is hurtful to others. This is called bullying -- Nor, should anyone from a government agency or anywhere feel they have the right to "harass" anyone in the name of "freedom of speech." Mr. Anderson, I hope that all of this ends and thank you for speaking up. It is time for this nation to become a tad more compassionate.

bugjuice

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.

"Shrivell is an example of govt. gone wrong...hopefully they find a way to get rid of this guy." Any excuse to blame the government instead of the perpetrator. MIke Cox is a prime example of "gov't gone wrong". Shirvell is his lackey and a symptom of Cox's complete and utter disregard for some of the Michigan citizens he was elected to serve.

YpsiChick

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 7:43 a.m.

I find it completely reprehensible that our State Attorney General Mike Cox is condoning this bullying and hate behavior by not speaking against it, even defending it as "free speech".

clownfish

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 7:41 a.m.

Shrivell is an example of govt. gone wrong Govt has nothing to do with Mr Shirvills actions and comments. It is all his own personal and religious issues. Thankfully Mr Shirvill is unable to exercise his religions Olde Style response to Mr. Armstrong, there will be no stoning or burning of The Other. Where is Mr. Shirvills outrage over the Catholic Churchs massive cover up of pedophilia in The Church? Why does Mr. Shirvill not get worked up over the treatment of the impoverished, the sick and dying or warmongers, as Jesus commanded? Has he picketed any divorce attorneys offices or is he just working off of one single line in the Old Testament while ignoring so many other directions from his Lord?

braggslaw

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 : 6:12 a.m.

Shrivell is an example of govt. gone wrong...hopefully they find a way to get rid of this guy.

ann_arbor_guy

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:37 p.m.

Chris, your community is here for you as well. I am appalled at the behavior of Andrew Shirvell and I hope you get the PPO that you have requested and that Andrew gets the help he needs.

Susan Montgomery

Wed, Oct 6, 2010 : 10:24 p.m.

It's a shame that he has to deal with this, but I'm so proud of the way Mr. Armstrong has handled himself through the whole controversy. Commendable.