1 Well, not all atheists are thin-skinned. And I don't think Philip Paulson is necessarily thin-skinned. I think he's a complete and utter dickhead, and atheists have their fair share of those.

2 You're right: sloppy phrasing. I know plenty of athiests who are very nice--and not hypersensitive at all. I meant, of course, the media whore athiests, and I should have been clearer.

3 Oh, we're talking about a cross? So, why are non-Atheists, non-Jews, non-Muslims, non-Jainists...well...to narrow it down, Believers-in-Christ so pig-headed and intolerant? How about replacing the cross with a star of David or some other religious symbol? When I see a Memoiral cross I DO think that the person(s) it represents are followers of Christ, otherwise it's an insult. When I buried my dad (Korean War Vet) I had the choice of symbols (if any wanted) and so chose for him the Star of David. But to have a cross represent ALL of those who've fallen in combat, though well meaning, CAN BE, and to many is, offensive. But is this yet another episode of overbearing Political Correctness (i.e. everything has to be ruled non-offensive in every way, which I hate) or Conservative Majority Status Quo (i.e. so it's religious and offensive. It's done - fait accompli, which I also hate)? In any case, LMA, you should not call us "freaking stupid" because that's personal and you don't want a personal war...

4 Hey. I've already clarified that I only meant the intolerant. And MT won't let me edit the entry to change the language I used, or add an explanatory note. BTW, are you offended as an athiest, or as a Jew? If it were up to me we'd have all the best symbols in public places: lots of crosses, many many Stars of David, some crescents, a bunch of Buddhas, those cool Indian icons, and a smattering of pagan/Wiccan symbols. So, yes: I'd love to see someone build a huge star on one of the neighboring mountains in S.D. County. Heck--I'll send money.

5 Is that a threat? I wouldn't go that that road if I were you. That'd be freakin' stupid. How about just saying it means something to the veterans that were Christians. Maybe someone with real money can buy the land--make it a private site. Bill Gates? You've taken enough of my money so I don't think I'm out of line asking you to consider it. Unless you're a weanie or something.

6 Hey, hey--no fighting. Expecially not with Mr. Mahatma, who was drawn in by my tart phrasing. It is, however, okay to bash Bill Gates, who has foisted a rather unfortunate OS on the world at large. And there are plenty of hillsides in SD County: enough for every faith to display a symbol that's visible from the developed areas. With the right fundraising in place, we won't even need Billy-Boy.

7 I was NOT drawn in by your tart phrasing. I was drawn in by your phrasing - tart! And don't ge me started on Bill "Demonspawn" Gates. But I like the idea of building other symbols. I vote for a massive erect phallus next to a huge welcoming vagina. After all, that's what life is about.

8 I object to the empty skylines all over the country! Aren't they really monuments to atheism? And wouldn't you estimate that around 90-something% of the US Korean War fatalities were Christian. How about we just call it a monument for a time when people had sense? I object to your idea for those phallic/vaginal monuments for military cemeteries. Save those for our high schools! We can't let cell phones do everything! (There was a story about police/school officials investigating a cell phone recording of two high school students having sex in class while other students watched. An adult voice(presumably the teacher) can be heard commenting on the action--either color commmentary or play-by-play--when the transcripts are released we will know)

9 "Repeat a lie often enough and people will start to believe it" Josef Goebbels. The Mt. Soledad Cross was named a Korean War memorial by the city of San Diego after it was first ordered torn down. It was a blatant and fraudulent attempt at gaming the system. The courts refused to buy it. Calling it a war memorial is also an insult to every one who served in Korea. San Diego has consistently and persistently mishandled the whole affair so badly it's not even funny. It would be far better for my home town to state the following, "The cross on Mt. Soledad is a symbol of the city of San Diego. It represents the city and her inhabitants, regardless of religious affiliation or lack there of. If anybody sees it as purely a Christian symbol, that's their problem, net ours."

10 Hm. Retroactive War Memorial. That doesn't sound good. What year was that?

11 "It's a story dating back to 1913, when Pacific Beach residents built one out of redwood and erected it atop the mountain. Thieves allegedly removed it 10 years later, and its replacement, created in 1934, was felled by high winds in 1952. Soon after(1954), the Mount Soledad Memorial Association erected the current cross to commemorate soldiers of the Korean and two world wars. "http://entertainment.signonsandiego.com/profile/91675 The nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association). was created in 1998, and a more elaborate Korean War Memorial built shortly thereafter. But since it was already dedicated in 1954 to those who had died in the two world wars and Korea, you would have a hard time making a case that it is all a recent scam. Hmm...Maybe one day the people will wake up and realize what "San Diego" means! Horrors!

12 of course there is this in Wikipedia--"On September 3(2005), Superior Court Judge Patricia Yin Cowett issued a temporary restraining order barring the transfer until the issue was settled. Lawyers on each side presented their arguments on October 3, 2005. A key issue was the status of the area as a secular war memorial, given the fact that it was not developed as a memorial until ten years after the first lawsuit. Prior to the law suit, no plaque or marker designated or explained the site's status as a war memorial, and during the fifty years prior to the law suit, there were no ceremonies or recognitions of the Korean War or to war veterans at the site, only Easter Sunday services. A 1985 map of the "San Diego Area" identifies the cross as the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross. [8] A court document also refers to several references of the Easter Cross including, "...the U.S. Department of Commerce Coast and Geodetic Survey (indicating "Easter Cross" on chart)."[9]" One would think that if a document could be produced with a date prior to 1985 showing the intent of the 1954 dedication, the matter could be resolved. Is CBS listening? Use a P.O. Box of 12345, please. It gives it that certain sense of authenticity. And don't forget to use plenty of superscripts!

13 I'm not impressed by the Easter Cross moniker; presumably that was the term for the first two crosses, and what locals called it. The fact that a map's fact-checker might have fallen down on the job doesn't seem like a compelling case to me.

14 I find it strange that the court only offers two pieces of contrary information. How many printed references would you guess might exist? Thousands?(When you consider travel brochures, city guides, homeowner association publications, permits to erect the cross, plans to build the cross, artist renderings, etc.) How about newspaper stories from the time?