published Saturday, August 3rd, 2013

Firing Drew Johnson amounts to censorship and other letters to the editors

Firing Drew Johnson amounts to censorship

There must have been something else brewing between management and Drew Johnson. His headline “Take you jobs plan and shove it” was spot on and not “inappropriate” as you stated. Mr. Johnson probably changed it over your instructions not to do so. Censorship. Perhaps he might get a reprimand, but his job, no. Even though you tout your policy of publishing opposing views, this action certainly is an indicator of the current liberal media bias and intolerance prevalent in this nation. If Mr. Johnson would return, which probably is doubtful, he is owed an apology. After all you have given your vitriolic narrow-minded cartoonist, Bennett, carte blanche to publish his divisive art and comment that offers nothing constructive. Mr. Johnson always offered with an opposing view, a possible solution.


Free Press editorial was inflammatory

I expect an adult even from the right side of the newspaper. Does not a moral person show respect to others, even those with whom they may disagree? What has happened to the respect for the office of the president? What happened to civil discourse? The inflamed language used on the Free Press opinion page on July 30, demeans us generally as a society and directly as southerners. Editorials need to be thought provoking and if possible, problem — solution driven, not just inflammatory rhetoric. Again, this editorial was just nasty. You owe “our” president and your readers an apology. You could have stated your reasons of opposition without being so utterly disrespectful.

BRENDA EASON, Lookout Mountain

‘Free Press’ not as free as bad as we had hoped

Clay Bennett gets away with outrageous, albeit clever, content regularly. Drew Johnson is terminated for changing a headline?

I’m thinking the Free Press isn’t so free after after all. If that is really the truth of what happened, then it is chilling. I suspect someone just didn’t like the man and was looking for an excuse to get rid of him.


There is such a thing as evolution

A farmer has 10 cows, one of which produces more milk than the others. The farmer likes this about that cow and exclusively breeds her, raising calves that are also able to produce more milk. As those calves grow up to join the milk cows, the other cows are sold for slaughter and do not reproduce. Eventually, all ten of the farmer’s cows produce more milk. Change has occurred in the farmer’s population of cows over time. Before, nine out of ten cows produced little milk. Now, after the beneficial trait of high milk volume was selected generation after generation, all ten of the cows produce more milk. This is evolution by domestication. When such a change occurs in nature without human intervention, it is evolution. Plain and simple.


Johnson's instability shows in his reaction

Thank you for firing an editor too angry to think clearly and communicate anything except venom and violence. Johnson’s public response to his firing was typical of him. “I just became the first person in the history of newspapers to be fired for writing a paper’s most — read article.” Wonder how he established that claim. He also sounds unclear as to why he was fired and maybe why so many read his article. Like many others, I read his article with the fear and disgust I feel when any unstable writer is given a forum to incite violence, fearful of the harm such a writer can do to our already battered democracy.

FAYE WALTER, Sewanee, Tenn.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
soakya said...

What is the purpose of opinion pieces? Is it not to give the writer the freedom to express his point of view without fear of retribution from the owners or management. With all the vitriol expressed in media today someone says Johnson was unstable. Please point to the instability. What was so fearful about his article? If someone found that article fearful, disgusting and able to incite violence I can only assume they are limited to what they read or listen to and most certainly never reads any of the comments or looks at the vitriolic Bennett cartoons posted on here day after day with the same constant theme.

I believe someone posted earlier they believed this firing was not just about the president but because Johnson attacked the heart of sustainable development and the public-private partnership particularly with the EPB and I am prone to agree with that poster. He exposed what a very few on these message boards understand.

August 3, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.
mozemoose said...

Spin this any way you want, but the timing and the strange justification of this termination will have a chilling effect on the expression of conservative thought in Chattanooga. This paper has lost credibility.

August 3, 2013 at 9:29 a.m.
librul said...

Why, local conservatives and their three-ring circus clowns in Washington have so little credibility anyway?

August 3, 2013 at 12:12 p.m.
RUKE said...

I agree with most of the above posts. You have lost credibility and I think Drew Johnson said publicly what many conservatives are feeling about the President (not the office of the President). He just used Chattanooga in his ongoing "campaign" stop.

August 3, 2013 at 12:16 p.m.
mightycujo said...

Obama has never quit campaigning since 2008. His speeches are just recycled anymore. He always has a "plan" but never implements them. Most divisive president we've ever had. REAL leaders unite the people.

Johnson was fired because TFP didn't agree with him. Seems most on the ft are the same. They love free speech only when they agree with it.

August 3, 2013 at 2:18 p.m.
architect said...

I will miss Drew Johnson. I found his brand of conservatism/ libertarian-ism to be very refreshing after the stale and boring Lee Anderson, who used "Socialism" in nearly every editorial. While I agree his headline change was crude and disrespectful, I do not feel it is worthy of firing. It seems to be just more "Political Correctness" at work.

I greatly admire the Times Free Press for having two opposing points of view. I hope either Drew comes back or another pithy editor replaces him.

August 3, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
chet123 said...



August 3, 2013 at 9:10 p.m.

Well, Bless My Soul! What is the life span of a cow? Even the ones that give more milk die like they did when they were first created by Jesus Christ. Now, that evolution stuff isn't working too good for cows, and dogs, and cats, and people, and corn, and wheat, and potatoes, and trees, and well, You get it. They all break down, degenerate, decompose to their simple elements and de-evolve. I mean, after millions, and trillions, and zillions of years (why do those fossils that old still have carbon 14 in them???? Anyway, it sure is a good thing that we can get more milk per cow now...ending on a positive note!


August 4, 2013 at 8:06 a.m.
soakya said...

I don't want to minimize what happened to Drew but Cleveland had 2 separate cases in the past 15 months where public officials stepped on the 1st amendment rights of its citizens.

Most recently 2 officials went on private property and removed signs. One of them made it clear publicly the reason the signs was removed was the message on the sign was an embarrassment to the city. Then a judge refused to issue warrant's because the courts were no place to bring a political issue for remedy. Keep in mind Drew was the reporter from the Times who reported on this.

I believe the 1st amendment protects our right to speech from being limited by the government not necessarily our employers or other citizens.

Where is the national coverage, where is the outrage. There is none. If your upset about what the Times did, why aren't you upset about public officials stepping on 1st amendment rights.

August 4, 2013 at 8:09 a.m.
jjmez said...

fairmon, your comparisons to the incident in Cleveland doesn't compute. You're talking cucumbers and pineapples. Drew was an employee of TFP and, therefore, was bound by employer rules. He was also on TFP private property and using employer equipment. What if you went into a supermarket to make purchases, and when you went to checkout the cashier took it upon themselves to mark up every item in your cart without management approval? That's basically what Drew did. He changed what was approved to his own liking. Plus, as more has come out about little Drews misadventures, there maybe more to this story than what meets the eye, or what Drew attempted to make it all out to be. In his favor of course.

August 4, 2013 at 9:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Good grief, Ken Orr. Learn some science before you post on it. Your comment just exposes your ignorance.

August 4, 2013 at 9:34 a.m.
soakya said...

I don't want to minimize what happened to Drew but Cleveland had 2 separate cases in the past 15 months where public officials stepped on the 1st amendment rights of its citizens.

Most recently 2 officials went on private property and removed signs. One of them made it clear publicly the reason the signs was removed was because the message on the sign was an embarrassment to the city. Then a judge refused to issue warrant's because the courts were no place to bring a political issue for remedy. Keep in mind Drew was the reporter and I believe the only one from the Times who reported on this. The Banner refused to report.

Where was the media, local or national when the Cleveland Mayor and the entire city council voted to hunt down, expose and arrest individuals for handing out an anonymous flyer 15 months ago. No reporter from this area, the Times or the Banner questioned whether public officials might be stepping on citizens rights and creating a chilling effect on others. They were silent.

I believe the 1st amendment protects our right to speech from being limited or suppressed by the government.

Where was the national coverage, where was the outrage over the Cleveland incidents. There is none, there was none. If your upset about what the Times did, why aren't you upset about public officials stepping on 1st amendment rights. The 2 Cleveland violations should at least make you as upset if not more than the Times violation did because the government at any level holds more power over you than any newspaper ever could.

Wake up Cleveland and don't be silent.

August 4, 2013 at 9:48 a.m.
laurawestbrook said...

Drew Johnson is an informed, educated, intelligent man. It is unfortunate that he has been trying to present the viewpoint of the majority of Americans working within a liberal newspaper. I completely agree with his article. Just wait until Obamacare really kicks in - do we actually think businesses will be hiring lots of full time workers? Businesses are already preferring to hire part time workers instead of full time. I hope that the childish behavior of the Times Free Press and EPB (for firing Drew's fiancé) will lead to a better job for Drew. Drew, I wish you all the best and hope that you know there are a lot of Chattanoogans rooting for you!

August 4, 2013 at 10:45 a.m.
RShultz210 said...

Mr. Orr it does you no good to argue against evolution. There is a simple reason why the whole biosphere, plants and animals both, contain carbon 14 after so a long a time as you mention. The unstable Carbon14 isotope is constantly being produced by cosmic radiation that generates neutrons in the upper atmosphere that undergo a nuclear reaction that you know very well can't be reproduced here because the symbols necessary to write the equation are not present on a standard keyboard. You also know the half-life of Carbon14 as well as anyone else (5,730 years). You also know we are able to measure the ratio of C14 to it's stable isotope C12 which does not decay, and that both plants and animals absorb both isotopes AT THE SAME RATE for their WHOLE LIVES and this enables us to date fossils quite accurately. You know all this and yet you spew your illogical religious argument at every opportunity. Do you enjoy people considering you to be an idiotic religious zealot? Even if, as you people claim the earth is 4000 years old that simply disproves your assertion that there can't any more C14 left in fossils since NOT ENOUGH TIME HAS PASSED FOR HALF OF IT TO DECAY. Therefore even according to YOUR logic there SHOULD be carbon14 in every fossil we find plant OR animal and LO AND BEHOLD, WHEN WE LOOK WE FIND IT! Take my advice and give up.

August 4, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.
RShultz210 said...

The Times Free Press was dead wrong to fire Drew Johnson for simply telling the truth about Obama which is that he is basically a socialist liar who he made promises he knew he could not keep in the normal way(That is through legislation introduced into and passed by, Congress) he knew he would have to do much of it by Presidential fiat which he did by the trick of "deeming" Obamacare to have been passed, and generally trying to rule by executive order. The way the TFP went about this, not saying a word until Mr. Johnson essentially told His Not Personally Awareness to take his job plan and shove it, and then coming up with and passing a rule in the next 24 hours that forbid editors to do what Drew did and then firing him for violating a policy that didn't exist until after the fact, sucked big time. Mr. Johnson is an intelligent , forthcoming person and I don't doubt he will be able to find a job with a paper that will appreciate his talent and initiative.

August 4, 2013 at 5:51 p.m.


Your faith in the theory of evol. is truly blind faith. You 'would be' a great and mighty witness for the fact of the True One who asks for our faith, Jesus Christ. Be informed that one of the greatest tools to try to deceive Christians is the Anti-Christ tool of the senseless chatter about their faith in evol.

"One interesting fact, for evols who continuously use carbon dating, is that Willard Libby, who revealed C-14/C-12 dating came to the conclusion that an equilibrium (or balance between decaying and production of C-14) should have been reached within 20-30 thousand years of the beginning of the process; the fact that it hasn't naturally points to a younger world.

The point is: when the evols try to use carbon and isotope dating; know that many unsettled flaws exist in the formula: we have no idea if there has been a constant decay rate and not accelerated; that the amounts of original C-14 in the specimen's beginning is a calculated guess at best; that few specimens are of perfect closed-systems without contamination; and that the magnetic field which dictates the amount of C-14, via neutrons bondin with Nitrogen 14, is proven to be decreasing, which prevents accurate, stable calculations.

The evols who bring poppy cock bosh about millions of years and carbon dating, know that they are giving controversial assertions which require more belief than believing in God, and it usually doesn't correspond with the true science that is shaky at best in calculating even short periods of time."

August 4, 2013 at 7:45 p.m.

Oh, by the way, there are myriads of assumptions made on this site. Another fact is: I have never declared that I believe this earth is only 6,000 years old!

Please study the 'Gap Theory' for the age of the earth. Study the Pre-Adamites. This seems much more plausible than evol. Theory.


August 4, 2013 at 7:51 p.m.

Hopefully You will take a look at this. From an otherwise 'secular site', Wikipedia.

August 4, 2013 at 9:53 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Garbage, Ken Orr. C-14 is not used for any biological artifact older than about 70,000 years old. The rate of decay is constant for all isotopes.

that the amounts of original C-14 in the specimen's beginning is a calculated guess at best

If determined as a ratio between isotopes of carbon, it is quite precisely known

that few specimens are of perfect closed-systems without contamination

techniques are designed to reduce or eliminate contamination

and that the magnetic field which dictates the amount of C-14, via neutrons bondin with Nitrogen 14, is proven to be decreasing, which prevents accurate, stable calculations.

huh? Neutrons don't bond with N-14. The result would be N-15.

I declare Poe. No one could be this ignorant and be willing to reveal it publicly.

August 4, 2013 at 9:54 p.m.


Do You agree with this:

The elements carbon and nitrogen have the atomic numbers 6 and 7, respectively. Carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus, and nitrogen has 7 protons in its nucleus. The mass number is basically the number of protons in the nucleus added to the number of neutrons in that nucleus. Let's look at the two cases.

In carbon-14, there are 6 protons and 8 neutrons in the nucleus. The 6 + 8 = 14, which is the mass number of carbon-14. In nitrogen-14, there are 7 protons and 7 neutrons in the nucleus. The 7 + 7 = 14, which is the mass number of nitrogen-14. The two different elements can share the same mass number for the reasons for the above reasons.

August 5, 2013 at 4:20 a.m.

O.K., O.K! lkeithlu, You don't want to use the word 'bond', so let's use the word 'react'. As in/with cosmogenic neutrons.

Cosmogenic neutrons, neutrons produced from cosmic radiation in the Earth's atmosphere or surface, and those produced in particle accelerators can be significantly higher energy than those encountered in reactors. Most of them activate a nucleus before reaching the ground; a few react with nuclei in the air. The reactions with nitrogen-14 lead to the formation of carbon-14, widely used in radiocarbon dating.

lkeithlu, Your assumptions about carbon-14 dating is unverifiable.

A piece of wood was found in the “Hawkesbury Sandstone” of Sydney, Australia. The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a geologic age of approx. 225-230 million years based on its position in the geologic column. It was doubtful if any detectable C-14 still remained in the wood, but a test was performed anyway to see if it contained C-14 (a sample of the wood was sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston, USA). The wood came back with a C-14 age of 33, 720 ± 430 years! One might wonder if any contamination had occurred, but according to AIG, Geochron Laboratories conducted thorough tests to ensure that there was no contamination.


August 5, 2013 at 4:54 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your error regarding C-14 is excused, except for the part about the rate of production: the variation is too small to affect the dating techniques.

Sandstone containing wood? Neither Snelling nor the lab that accepted the sample could confirm that it was organic to begin with. In other words, it was not wood at all. A slight amount of C-14 found (very slight considering that they "dated" it to 22,000 years) was accounted for by background radiation from the sandstone itself producing a slight amount of C-14. Carbon 14 analysis is consistent for dates of up to 70,000 years, cross referenced by tree rings, lake sediments, and other reliable comparisons.

Here is the letter to a geologist who inquired into the claim. The letter is from Geochron: From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@GEOCHRONLABS.COM] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM To: Meert Joe Subject: Re: Some questions

Dear Joe

I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.

Best regards.

Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky Radiocarbon Lab Manager

Full account here:

The overwhelming evidence for a very old earth comes from geology. Geologists can describe what a world-wide flood would leave as far as evidence. None has been found. Instead there are thick layers of rocks that would take millions of years to form: shales, evaporites, deep ocean limestones and others that cannot form quickly or in turbulent water.

August 5, 2013 at 8:43 a.m.

Dr. Cherkinsky and Andrew Snelling do go toe-to-toe! Both stand their ground very well and refuse to surrender. I do see many (too many) possibilities for both sides of the argument. Yet, as I have told more than once on this site; my credentials are powerful in that I have studied physics, quantum and mechanical physics for longer than over half the population on earth has lived! I have found that when there is not a clearly definitive argument from one side to the other, then informed, educated intuition must be utilized.

There are just too many examples in science of errors, hoaxes, even evil intent to bilk the public out of their hard earned dollars, for me to have much faith in it. The scientific methods they use have false/inaccurate assumptions which make the method of the scientific method erroneous/corrupt. Even computer mathematics can be corrupted by entering erroneous assumptive information. Going back a few years, before high tech computer program languages, some of the most brilliant minds made mathematical errors that lasted many years before discovery.

Where will one place one's faith? In science, so-called? In the corrupt math used in this pseudo science? In Jesus Christ who offers unconditional love and eternal rest in Heaven?

Well, none but Jesus Christ has provided me a positive, life long experience that cannot be fully explained. Yet...He Is, and, my experience IS.


In The Ark of His Safety,


*There are no paraphrases or quotes in the above. All is original from Ken ORR.

August 6, 2013 at 12:32 a.m.

Hans Rademacher and False Hopes

In 1945, Time Magazine reported that Hans Rademacher had submitted a flawed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis to the journal Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. The text of the article follows: A sure way for any mathematician to achieve immortal fame would be to prove or disprove the Riemann hypothesis. This baffling theory, which deals with prime numbers, is usually stated in Riemann’s symbolism as follows: “All the nontrivial zeros of the zeta function of s, a complex variable, lie on the line where sigma is 1/2 (sigma being the real part of s).” The theory was propounded in 1859 by Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (who revolutionized geometry and laid the foundations for Einstein’s theory of relativity). No layman has ever been able to understand it and no mathematician has ever proved it.

One day last month electrifying news arrived at the University of Chicago office of Dr. Adrian A. Albert, editor of the Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. A wire from the society’s secretary, University of Pennsylvania Professor John R. Kline, asked Editor Albert to stop the presses: a paper disproving the Riemann hypothesis was on the way. Its author: Professor Hans Adolf Rademacher, a refugee German mathematician now at Penn.

On the heels of the telegram came a letter from Professor Rademacher himself, reporting that his calculations had been checked and confirmed by famed Mathematician Carl Siegel of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study. Editor Albert got ready to publish the historic paper in the May issue. U.S. mathematicians, hearing the wildfire rumor, held their breath. Alas for drama, last week the issue went to press without the Rademacher article. At the last moment the professor wired meekly that it was all a mistake; on rechecking. Mathematician Siegel had discovered a flaw (undisclosed) in the Rademacher reasoning. U.S. mathematicians felt much like the morning after a phony armistice celebration. Sighed Editor Albert: “The whole thing certainly raised a lot of false hopes.”

August 6, 2013 at 12:36 a.m.

Chuck Misslers book, "The Creator Beyond Time and Space", reviews Einstein's paper on The General Theory of Relativity. Albert Einstein published the theory in 1915. Astronomer Willem de Sitter found that Einstein had made a mathematical error.

Einstein reacted angrily at first, but finally conceded to his mathematical error and the evidence for a finite, expanding universe.

Heinz Pagels, a theoretical physicist explains: This unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence -- a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time.

August 6, 2013 at 12:46 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry, Ken, but geology refutes a young earth. Biology refutes special creation. Your discussion of mathematics and quantum mechanics have nothing to do with it. Science must deal with the material, and the overwhelming mass of observation supports an ancient earth and evolution.

August 6, 2013 at 6:03 a.m.

With me, what You have said is O.K., I do believe Jesus Christ programmed things to improve, but, not one species converting into another. lkeithlu, You have been and are valuable to me. Jesus Christ did create an earth that is now ancient.

This link is extremely important:

The truth of the Bible is that Genesis 1:2 is the description of the earth resulting from God's massive cataclysmic global judgment because of the sins of angels. It is not speaking about a stage in the construction of the earth, as mistakenly believed by Young Earth Creationists. Take a closer look at Genesis 1:2 to understand that it is indeed a description of God's global judgment.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Understand that God did not create the earth in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) in a chaotic, wasted, dark state submerged under water. The earth became like that because a massive cataclysmic change took place on earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

It is abundantly clear from Scripture that there was a gap of time between the creation of the beautiful earth of Genesis 1:1 and the totally ruined chaotic earth of Genesis 1:2. This gap of time is the Pre-Adamic Age, which lasted for many millions of years. So, the key question is: why did the earth become chaotic and ruined as described in Genesis 1:2?’ Understand that Genesis 1:2 is the description of the earth resulting from God's global judgment because of the sins of angels.

August 6, 2013 at 8:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yes, species diverged. It has been documented many times. Sorry. And no, Genesis is not an accurate description of how the earth formed, or how life began, except as mythology. And you are incorrect about YEC Creationists: they do indeed believe in the young earth, as in about 8000 years (some are even more precise). You requested reading suggestions, and I provided them. There is no evidence whatever that you read any of them. Without some knowledge of geology all you can do is thrash around aimlessly.It is a waste of time to discuss this matter with you until you educate yourself on the topic.

August 6, 2013 at 9:18 p.m.


There are megaton powerful and extreme force arguments on both sides of evol...this, to me, is undeniable. We may just choose one and hang our hat on it. There is no 'overwhelming' factor on either draw a conclusion we must incorporate personal bias, and/or faith. There just is no conclusive evidence utilizing only science. Science is fallible and also lies sometimes, like statistics.

So, what does one do? Well, let me ask You. If You feel love, is it real? Can I tell You that what You feel is not valid? I believe that Your reality is just that...'Your reality'.

I ask myself, where did it all begin? Where did God (Jesus Christ) come from? (i know, it's 'From where did Jesus Christ come'). I read and hear all the 'so called 'facts' about it all and they are very cold. Very c-o-l-d.

Then, I even feel fearful that I'm being lied to again and duped by the smoke and mirror beings. Or, I think, they mean well, but are not really smart enough to present accuracy/facts.

My next move is that I go to Jesus Christ. I find that His Person and His Word (The Bible)is the answer. All is answered by His Person and my relationship with Him. On a very high spiritual dimension, through this relationship I am completely content, and I feel safe. Not only do I feel. I know that I know that I know.

All of their 'if's', and 'possiblie's', and 'maybe's', and 'it could be's', and 'my science and math is better than yours', and 'endless questions'...well, I left there a long, long time ago.

'In Stephen Hawkin I (we) trust', uh, I don't think so!

'In Charles Darwin I (we) trust', nope, not today!

'In Bill Maher I (we) trust', say what?

Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me. ". Jesus, I trust. John 14:6

August 7, 2013 at 3:35 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

This is a post about religion and belief, Ken. I am not interested in religion, as I am not a believer. You don't know enough about evolution to carry on a discussion. And since you have shown that you are not interested in learning anything about evolution, I think our discussion is over.

August 7, 2013 at 7:59 a.m.

i do understand. Thank You for the time and effort You have given me...ken ORR

August 7, 2013 at 9:16 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.