Cactus Murdered by Alleged Abuse Victim

 

The Angry Cactus Anti-Defamation League’s Facebook page has dropped off users timeline today, following what administrators believe was a complaint spawned by protestors of the prickled boxing phallus.

The page was set up last week when a San Angelo LIVE! poll went viral, asking readers to evaluate renderings of a proposed structure for the rooftop of a soon-to-come downtown restaurant called the Angry Cactus.

Two questions on the poll asked if the sign was appropriate for downtown, and if poll-ees found it offensive; and a related article explained objections voiced by board members of the Design and Historic Review Commission, who used an arsenal of adjectives from phallic and offensive to kitsch and inappropriate to describe the drawings.

Following the release of the poll on Facebook, a San Angelo businessman started the Angry Cactus Facebook page as a place for “debate on where the town is heading”.

In only two days the page had reached more than 150 likes and over 7,000 visits in user traffic, and featured only a few posts—mostly pictures of various forms of cacti.

“There was 1 or 2 posts from San Angelo Live, public posts and some tongue-in-cheek about how stupid the whole thing was,” the administrator said. He didn’t believe that there was anything objectionable on the page that would warrant a complaint or the page’s suspension.

In order to suspend a page on Facebook, a complainant is given six options as to why the page and/or its content is objectionable. Those include options such as whether the page is a duplicate, miscategorized, if the event is being held at a different location, if it represents a space that is not public, if the place has permanently closed, and finally, ‘other/abusive content’.

[[{"fid":"8109","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","attributes":{}}]]

Proponents of the cactus would say that most of these do not apply, however it could well be that someone misconstrued the images of muscled and gloved cartoon cacti as resembling genetalia.

In a screenshot of the explanation for the page's suspension, Facebook explains its zero-tolerance policy for abusive behavior directed at private individuals. As of Wednesday evening, visitors to the page say they had not noticed any "sticks and stones", however a few cheeky words about banning pickles and bananas for the innuendo they illicit in supermarkets were on the page.  

One of the board members, as well as the board as a whole, was also called out on the page, however per Facebook's explanation, users are permitted to freely discuss public figures and events, which would appear to apply to board members of the DHRC. The administrator maintains that the intent was to spur conversation, not to offend. What the abusive behavior was and who it was directed at remains unclear.

In the absence of the pro-cactus debate page, an official Angry Cactus Facebook page has been set up by owner Tim Condon.

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

I find it rather hilarious that the Design and Historic Review Commission finds the cactus symbol "phallic" but would wholly accept the idea that San Angelo is the mohair (read sheep) capital of the world. Does anyone find those hidden meanings of sheep rather funny? The best thing about this is EXACTLY what Surly Bacon suggests - this is nothing but great advertising for the Angry [insert phallic reference] business. I love old world thinking. Rather than accept it as a new part of a growing city (for which they have no control), they would rather engage in archaic arguments about things they don't understand. It's one thing if someone opened a "San Angelo Whorehouse", but it's another when someone opens a restaurant with the title of an upset plant. I don't wonder where they stood on the "Twin Peaks" issue... At the end of the day, their arguments are sad, behind the times and will eventually be run over by big business - for which they will hypocritically profit from. Ah, yes, the hypocrisy of it all. I laugh in their face....! I'd like to order an Angry Cactus with extra mayo and a side of hard fries...make that two!
jdgt, Thu, 09/25/2014 - 15:41
I had the unpleasant misfortune of being mesmerized by a STUPID radio show regarding the topic of the rabid prickle mentioned above. Members of the council (I think) were going on and on, using big words that I'm sure they didn't know the meaning to, trying REALLY hard to prove points when there were none to prove. It hurt my ears. I wish they'd provided a phone number so we could call in and tell them just how absurd they sounded. I do hope this restaurant opens, with an over the top sign, and I hope they do well... and I hope they get to throw this nonsense back in the city's face.
Then I think the Design and Historic Review Commission needs to immediately ban dimes and quarters from being possessed inside the city limits of San Angelo. If you'll look on the back side of a dime and turn the torch upside down, you'll find a "weinie"...... As well on an older quarter, the branch the eagle is perched on has a "weiner head" on the side the eagles head is turned toward.... Everyone shall hereby immediately turn their dimes and quarters over to me for proper disposal..... :)
It's a funny thing how search engines work. If you Google Image any of the members of the Design and Historic Review Commission, included in the results is the green cartoon dick-cactus.
Wonder if the large buxom female on the Twin Peaks Restaurant is any more offensive than an angry cactus? I think the only folks that truly take offense are those that resemble the cactus. Ha ha.
Terry Phillips I was thinking the same thing. The cactus sign is ugly, not offensive to me. I just don't like it. Then again from reading about the place, I won't eat there anyway. We tried the twin peaks place. Uncomfortable seating and mediocre food means we won't be back.
Preparing a meal at home would be a novel idea. You wouldn't have to look at any objectionable signs and you could avoid bad service. The quality of the food would only be limited by the ability to cook a tasty and healthy meal.
I hate commissions that have so little to do that they have to invent silly things to obstruct.
Are we still in the third grade here? What happened to being a mature person? This town is so Christianized that it makes me sick. This will bring money and jobs into this town and people are worried about a cactus. I feel offended more on all the stupid sheep statues that are all over this town than a cactus statue that will bring money into it. I don't like the idea of being labeled the sheep capital of the world. Make San Angelo sound like a bunch of sheep F@ckers.

Post a comment to this article here: