No sane man actually marries
a woman who has been a whore.
John Kennedy had an amusing analysis,
Saying that he did not want to marry
a woman who would compare his wooing
with countless others before him.
>The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
>its own separate public juridic person.
Each parish is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the diocese. The bishop, as
CEO of the diocese, can close, merge, sell, or otherwise do whatever he
wants with everything in the diocese. No one in the parish, not even the
council, has any legal right to say anything about what the bishop does.
Each diocese is under control, directly or indirectly, of the Vatican.
>Would you like to try again to remove your embarrassment?
Why would I be embarrassed that you are wrong, again?
>*****
>1 John 3:4-6
>4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
>sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
>appeared so that he might take away our sins.
>And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
>him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
>sin has either seen him or known him. >*****
duke wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
> its own separate public juridic person.
And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
On Mar 31, 9:22 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
Figurative or literal?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
>> wrote:
>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual
>> parish is its own separate public juridic person.
> And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking
> lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the
> bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
The lucky ones merely get ex-communicated.
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Screw you guys! I'm going home."
-- Eric Theodore Cartman
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:36:29 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:28:42 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>>On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>duke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:29:32 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>>>> goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>>>> How much real estate do you think the Vatican actually has title to?
>>>> 109 acres estimated.
>>>You forgot the other 177 million acres. Only the sovereigns of the KSA >>>and UK have more land.
>>The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
>>its own separate public juridic person.
>Each parish is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the diocese. The bishop, as
>CEO of the diocese, can close, merge, sell, or otherwise do whatever he
>wants with everything in the diocese. No one in the parish, not even the
>council, has any legal right to say anything about what the bishop does.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20357 HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor) ? Who owns your local parish: The members
of the parish or your bishop? According to the Catholic Church (and its canon
laws dating back a millennium or so), the answer is the parishioners.
While the bishop's name usually appears on parish-property deeds and while the
bishop can close or suppress a parish, he technically does not own it. Rather he
holds it in trust for the parishioners, who paid for its construction and
continue to pay for its operation.
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that answer. Across the country a
growing number of plaintiffs' attorneys are working to convince the courts of
just the opposite.
Heeheehee.
>Each diocese is under control, directly or indirectly, of the Vatican.
>>Would you like to try again to remove your embarrassment?
>Why would I be embarrassed that you are wrong, again?
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. *****
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:22:21 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
>> its own separate public juridic person.
>And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking >lot to the city to become a softball field?
The deed is not in his name.
> He gets sacked by the >bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets >recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20357 HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor) ? Who owns your local parish: The members
of the parish or your bishop? According to the Catholic Church (and its canon
laws dating back a millennium or so), the answer is the parishioners.
While the bishop's name usually appears on parish-property deeds and while the
bishop can close or suppress a parish, he technically does not own it. Rather he
holds it in trust for the parishioners, who paid for its construction and
continue to pay for its operation.
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that answer. Across the country a
growing number of plaintiffs' attorneys are working to convince the courts of
just the opposite.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. *****
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:29:42 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>On 2012-Mar-31 09:22, linuxgal wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual
>>> parish is its own separate public juridic person.
>> And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking
>> lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the
>> bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
>> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
>The lucky ones merely get ex-communicated.
Excommunication is easy to remedy in a good repentant confession.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. *****
duke wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:29:42 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-Mar-31 09:22, linuxgal wrote:
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual
>>>> parish is its own separate public juridic person.
>>> And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking
>>> lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the
>>> bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
>>> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
>> The lucky ones merely get ex-communicated.
> Excommunication is easy to remedy in a good repentant confession.
Exactly. All they have to do is confess that they were wrong to assume the Vatican did not own the land, and all is forgiven.
> http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20357 > HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor) ? Who owns your local parish: The members
> of the parish or your bishop? According to the Catholic Church (and its canon
> laws dating back a millennium or so), the answer is the parishioners.
Yes, that's called a firewall. Michael Corleone used similar buffers in Godfather II. But when the Vatican wanted to remodel St. Thomas from old school to "in the round" we had no say in the matter.
>>>The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>>parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
>>>its own separate public juridic person.
>>Each parish is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the diocese. The bishop, as
>>CEO of the diocese, can close, merge, sell, or otherwise do whatever he
>>wants with everything in the diocese. No one in the parish, not even the
>>council, has any legal right to say anything about what the bishop does.
>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20357 >HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor) ? Who owns your local parish: The members
>of the parish or your bishop? According to the Catholic Church (and its canon
>laws dating back a millennium or so), the answer is the parishioners.
>While the bishop's name usually appears on parish-property deeds and while the
>bishop can close or suppress a parish, he technically does not own it. Rather he
>holds it in trust for the parishioners, who paid for its construction and
>continue to pay for its operation.
>Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that answer. Across the country a
>growing number of plaintiffs' attorneys are working to convince the courts of
>just the opposite.
The bishop owns it supposedly in trust, but he refuses to let the parish
ever make any decisions for itself. A parish that refuses to merge or to
continue to be part of the RCC because of the evils that the bishops
have done will soon find that they do not have the building.
>Heeheehee.
Read what it says: The bishop's name appears. He controls it. He is
allegedly the trustee, but that means that no one in the parish can do
anything about the parish that he does not want. He is absolute dictator
of every parish in his diocese.
>>Each diocese is under control, directly or indirectly, of the Vatican.
>>>Would you like to try again to remove your embarrassment?
>>Why would I be embarrassed that you are wrong, again?
>duke, American - American
>*****
>1 John 3:4-6
>4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
>sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
>appeared so that he might take away our sins.
>And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
>him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
>sin has either seen him or known him. >*****
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:22:21 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
>>> its own separate public juridic person.
>>And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking >>lot to the city to become a softball field?
>The deed is not in his name.
>> He gets sacked by the >>bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets >>recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20357 >HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor) ? Who owns your local parish: The members
>of the parish or your bishop? According to the Catholic Church (and its canon
>laws dating back a millennium or so), the answer is the parishioners.
>While the bishop's name usually appears on parish-property deeds and while the
>bishop can close or suppress a parish, he technically does not own it. Rather he
>holds it in trust for the parishioners, who paid for its construction and
>continue to pay for its operation.
>Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that answer. Across the country a
>growing number of plaintiffs' attorneys are working to convince the courts of
>just the opposite.
The slick part of the alleged trust is that it allows the bishop to put
the diocese into bankruptcy without having to hand over any parish
property. The bishop has power but no responsibility. It's the worst
form of corruption.
> duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:29:42 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>> atheist
>> goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-Mar-31 09:22, linuxgal wrote:
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my
>>>>> Church
>>>>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual
>>>>> parish is its own separate public juridic person.
>>>> And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking
>>>> lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the
>>>> bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
>>>> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
>>> The lucky ones merely get ex-communicated.
>> Excommunication is easy to remedy in a good repentant confession.
> Exactly. All they have to do is confess that they were wrong to assume
> the Vatican did not own the land, and all is forgiven.
Hell, they'll even forgive mass murderers on their death beds.
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
>>>>The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>>>parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
>>>>its own separate public juridic person.
>>>Each parish is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the diocese. The bishop, as
>>>CEO of the diocese, can close, merge, sell, or otherwise do whatever he
>>>wants with everything in the diocese. No one in the parish, not even the
>>>council, has any legal right to say anything about what the bishop does.
>>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20357 >>HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor) ? Who owns your local parish: The members
>>of the parish or your bishop? According to the Catholic Church (and its canon
>>laws dating back a millennium or so), the answer is the parishioners.
>>While the bishop's name usually appears on parish-property deeds and while the
>>bishop can close or suppress a parish, he technically does not own it. Rather he
>>holds it in trust for the parishioners, who paid for its construction and
>>continue to pay for its operation.
>>Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that answer. Across the country a
>>growing number of plaintiffs' attorneys are working to convince the courts of
>>just the opposite.
>The bishop owns it supposedly in trust, but he refuses to let the parish
>ever make any decisions for itself.
I just showed you where he does not own the parish. Are you blind?
> A parish that refuses to merge or to
>continue to be part of the RCC because of the evils that the bishops
>have done will soon find that they do not have the building.
What a stupid comment.
>>Heeheehee.
>Read what it says: The bishop's name appears. He controls it. He is
>allegedly the trustee, but that means that no one in the parish can do
>anything about the parish that he does not want. He is absolute dictator
>of every parish in his diocese.
I read what it says including in other documents. You're showing your ass as
usual.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. *****
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 05:54:01 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:29:42 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>> goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-Mar-31 09:22, linuxgal wrote:
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>>>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual
>>>>> parish is its own separate public juridic person.
>>>> And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking
>>>> lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the
>>>> bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
>>>> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
>>> The lucky ones merely get ex-communicated.
>> Excommunication is easy to remedy in a good repentant confession.
>Exactly. All they have to do is confess that they were wrong to assume >the Vatican did not own the land, and all is forgiven.
The Vatican does not own my parish, the structure, or the land the structure is
on. The Vicar of Christ is an administrative deputy job.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. *****
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:00:58 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 06:40:32 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:22:21 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>>>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual parish is
>>>> its own separate public juridic person.
>>>And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking >>>lot to the city to become a softball field?
>>The deed is not in his name.
>>> He gets sacked by the >>>bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets >>>recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
>>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20357 >>HUNTINGTON, Ind. (Our Sunday Visitor) ? Who owns your local parish: The members
>>of the parish or your bishop? According to the Catholic Church (and its canon
>>laws dating back a millennium or so), the answer is the parishioners.
>>While the bishop's name usually appears on parish-property deeds and while the
>>bishop can close or suppress a parish, he technically does not own it. Rather he
>>holds it in trust for the parishioners, who paid for its construction and
>>continue to pay for its operation.
>>Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that answer. Across the country a
>>growing number of plaintiffs' attorneys are working to convince the courts of
>>just the opposite.
>The slick part of the alleged trust is that it allows the bishop to put
>the diocese into bankruptcy without having to hand over any parish
>property. The bishop has power but no responsibility. It's the worst
>form of corruption.
You wear sagging pants like your brothers, don't you.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. *****
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:29:42 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> >On 2012-Mar-31 09:22, linuxgal wrote:
> >> duke wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
> >>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual
> >>> parish is its own separate public juridic person.
> >> And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking
> >> lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the
> >> bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
> >> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
> >The lucky ones merely get ex-communicated.
duke:
> Excommunication is easy to remedy in a good repentant confession.
Not unlike yelling after your mugger as he flees down
the street "HEY! YOU FORGOT MY WATCH!"
> *****
> 1 John 3:4-6
> 4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
> sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
> appeared so that he might take away our sins.
> And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
> him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
> sin has either seen him or known him.
> *****
>On Apr 1, 4:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:29:42 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>> goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> >On 2012-Mar-31 09:22, linuxgal wrote:
>> >> duke wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:32:19 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> The Vatican doesn't own that land. The grounds and structure of my Church
>> >>> parish is owned by the Parish as a taxable entity. Each individual
>> >>> parish is its own separate public juridic person.
>> >> And what happens when a parish priest sells his church overflow parking
>> >> lot to the city to become a softball field? He gets sacked by the
>> >> bishop. And what happens if the bishop doesn't sack him? He gets
>> >> recalled to the Vatican for a butt reaming.
>> >The lucky ones merely get ex-communicated.
>duke:
>> Excommunication is easy to remedy in a good repentant confession.
>Not unlike yelling after your mugger as he flees down
>the street "HEY! YOU FORGOT MY WATCH!"
It sounds like it's totally unlike that.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him. *****
BroilJAB wrote:
> No sane man actually marries
> a woman who has been a whore.
> John Kennedy had an amusing analysis,
> Saying that he did not want to marry
> a woman who would compare his wooing
> with countless others before him.
Who woos a whore?
-- It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of Java the thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shaking,
The shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 20:31:09 -0700, linuxgal wrote:
> BroilJAB wrote:
>> No sane man actually marries
>> a woman who has been a whore.
>> John Kennedy had an amusing analysis, Saying that he did not want to
>> marry
>> a woman who would compare his wooing
>> with countless others before him.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-26 19:57, linuxgal wrote:
>> MarkA wrote:
>>> Deciding that you're going to be abstinent until marriage is fine when
>>> you're sitting in your church youth group meeting, but when that special
>>> someone gives you that special smile, it becomes a whole different
>>> story....
>> The eyes have it.
> ...unless there's a foot fetish involved.
Only in Tarantino movies.
-- Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Resolute On Squeezing Out Fair Trade
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> > On 2012-Mar-26 19:57, linuxgal wrote:
> >> MarkA wrote:
> >>> Deciding that you're going to be abstinent until marriage is fine when
> >>> you're sitting in your church youth group meeting, but when that special
> >>> someone gives you that special smile, it becomes a whole different
> >>> story....
> >> The eyes have it.
> > ...unless there's a foot fetish involved.
> Only in Tarantino movies.
> --
> Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Resolute On Squeezing Out Fair Trade
> > Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> > > On 2012-Mar-26 19:57, linuxgal wrote:
> > >> MarkA wrote:
> > >>> Deciding that you're going to be abstinent until marriage is fine when
> > >>> you're sitting in your church youth group meeting, but when that special
> > >>> someone gives you that special smile, it becomes a whole different
> > >>> story....
> > >> The eyes have it.
> > > ...unless there's a foot fetish involved.
> > Only in Tarantino movies.
> > --
> > Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Resolute On Squeezing Out Fair Trade
> Abstinence hasn't worked for thousands of years.
> What makes you think it will work now?
It won't work - it never has, and it never *will*. It doesn't even
work in countries or cultures where they cut off your head or stone
you to death for having premarital sex. The drive is just too strong.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 00:05:51 -0700, SkyEyes wrote:
> On Nov 3, 12:39 pm, Frank Galikanokus <FrankGalikano...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> linuxgal wrote:
>> > Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> > > On 2012-Mar-26 19:57, linuxgal wrote:
>> > >> MarkA wrote:
>> > >>> Deciding that you're going to be abstinent until marriage is fine
>> > >>> when you're sitting in your church youth group meeting, but when
>> > >>> that special someone gives you that special smile, it becomes a
>> > >>> whole different story....
>> > >> The eyes have it.
>> > > ...unless there's a foot fetish involved.
>> > Only in Tarantino movies.
>> > --
>> > Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Resolute On Squeezing Out Fair
>> > Trade
>> Abstinence hasn't worked for thousands of years.
>> What makes you think it will work now?
> It won't work - it never has, and it never *will*. It doesn't even work
> in countries or cultures where they cut off your head or stone you to
> death for having premarital sex. The drive is just too strong.
But in those countries there are no unmarried mothers...
<runs, ducks and hides>
