You know - when the "Craig" incident first appeared - Craig made his statement in response to same very anti-Jewish statements made by an anonymous poster who was a cc supporter.

Many were given the opinion that the Daily Record refused to comment on the inflammatory statements because they were anonymous - who know, it's possible that Craig wrote them himself just to respond to (note - not my opinion...IMHO, the posts were from a cc supporter).

Now, we have the reverse situation...An anonymous poster posts 'inflammatory' humor (definitely not anti-cc, maybe considered anti-Christian, but in reality, just plain old humor in poor taste) - copied from OTHER websites (the only way to post graphics here - link to other websites)...and cc's PR machine complains...I'd like to see them respond to the posts that caused Craig's initial post - do they take 'ownership of them?  Or do they sit back and smile smirkly, knowing they have some degree of control over their press via their highly paid PR firm (Hi Marc - can you read me now???)...Interesting how some anonymous posts can be ignored and others are not.

It must be nice to be paid to have an agenda...