Catholic Worshipper Gwen Stefani Now Able to Date Without Incurring God's Wrath!

[Miloch]

Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale finally granted annulment by Catholic Church

https://pagesix.com/2021/01/08/gwen-stefani-and-gavin-rossdales-marriage-finally-annulled/

More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.

“Gwen was told the decision was made by the Vatican tribunal,” a source told Us
Weekly. “She will be receiving the notification in writing in the next few
weeks, but it’s official.”

The No Doubt frontwoman, 51, filed for divorce from the rocker, 54, in August
2015 after nearly 13 years of marriage, citing irreconcilable differences. They
finalized their divorce in April 2016.

Stefani had reportedly put off the idea of marrying fiancé Blake Shelton until
the annulment was finalized due to her religious beliefs. Receiving the official
blessing of the Catholic church, the source believes, should move things along.

“It was a huge relief for Gwen because she wanted to get married by her priest
and have the marriage recognized by the Catholic church,” the source added.

Stefani and Rossdale share sons Kingston, 13, Zuma, 11, and Apollo, 6.




*

[Robert]

On Jan 8, 2021, Miloch wrote
(in article <rtar3...@drn.newsguy.com>):

Now all those children are officially born out of wedlock, per the annulment. It would have been less expensive, and less harmful if she just paid her RC Sin Tax.(better known as Indulgences)

[P+Barker]

Miloch <Miloch...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale finally granted annulment by Catholic Church
>https://pagesix.com/2021/01/08/gwen-stefani-and-gavin-rossdales-marriage-finally-annulled/
>More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
>have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.

Good news for Gwen.

[P+Barker]

You are an idiot.
The children were conceived during the marriage.
annulment – a declaration from the church that a marriage was never
valid – makes it possible for divorced Catholics to enter a new
marriage and still be eligible to receive Communion.Sep 9, 2015

Among the reasons why a party could seek an annulment, the panel
included the discovery that a person in the marriage was in an
extramarital relationship at the time of the marriage, when a spouse
procured an abortion, and when one party lacked religious faith.Sep 8,
2015

Although the grounds for seeking an annulment differ, as can factors
that may disqualify a person for an annulment, common grounds for
annulment include the following:
Marriage between close relatives. ...
Mental incapacity. ...
Underage marriage. ...
Duress. ...
Fraud. ...
Bigamy.

Myth #4
IF AN ANNULMENT IS GRANTED THE CHILDREN WILL BE ILLEGITIMATE
Truth: The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only
with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at
all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding
children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the
civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects
under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the
children illegitimate.

[Robert]

On Jan 9, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<vm8kvfho579nh5qbu...@4ax.com>):

A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards. There can be no new marriage as there never was an old marriage. It renders all communion, etc. as invalid, all actions illegal and invalid per the RCC including all actions by any priest as the people were judged to be doing things illegal per RC Dogma's and Doctrines.

>
> Among the reasons why a party could seek an annulment, the panel
> included the discovery that a person in the marriage was in an
> extramarital relationship at the time of the marriage, when a spouse
> procured an abortion, and when one party lacked religious faith.Sep 8,
> 2015

IOW's, if they become a Born Again Believer, believe in Creation as noted in Scripture or anything else deemed contrary to the RCC, then they are "out".

>
>
> Although the grounds for seeking an annulment differ, as can factors
> that may disqualify a person for an annulment, common grounds for
> annulment include the following:
> Marriage between close relatives. ...
> Mental incapacity. ...
> Underage marriage. ...
> Duress. ...
> Fraud. ...
> Bigamy.

Why isn't Child abuse listed, or any form of sex with a RC Church leader? Or homosexuality.

So now, your wife can dismiss you since you are now Senile, have Parkinsons disease, Dementia, etc. And find herself an altogether man, eh?

>
>
> Myth #4
> IF AN ANNULMENT IS GRANTED THE CHILDREN WILL BE ILLEGITIMATE
> Truth: The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only
> with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at
> all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding
> children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the
> civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects
> under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the
> children illegitimate.

OH? So you say that they are only bastards per the RCC and their salvation, but civilly they are just fine?

The RCC giveth and taketh away.

[P+Barker]

Maybe your little god tells you this.
You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
Are you still considred "saved?"

>There can be no new marriage as there never was an old marriage. It renders all communion, etc. as invalid, all actions illegal and invalid per the RCC including all actions by any priest as the people
>were judged to be doing things illegal per RC Dogma's and Doctrines.

Perhaps you should read what I stated again.
I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
Stop making up shit about my religion.
You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
To confront liars and bullies.

>> Among the reasons why a party could seek an annulment, the panel
>> included the discovery that a person in the marriage was in an
>> extramarital relationship at the time of the marriage, when a spouse
>> procured an abortion, and when one party lacked religious faith.Sep 8,
>> 2015
>
>IOW's, if they become a Born Again Believer, believe in Creation as noted in Scripture or anything else deemed contrary to the RCC, then they are "out".

Are you just plain stupid?
No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.

>> Although the grounds for seeking an annulment differ, as can factors
>> that may disqualify a person for an annulment, common grounds for
>> annulment include the following:
>> Marriage between close relatives. ...
>> Mental incapacity. ...
>> Underage marriage. ...
>> Duress. ...
>> Fraud. ...
>> Bigamy.
>
>Why isn't Child abuse listed, or any form of sex with a RC Church leader? Or homosexuality.

I named the "COMMON GROUNDS" for annulment.
I decided not to name your favorite sins.

>So now, your wife can dismiss you since you are now Senile, have Parkinsons disease, Dementia, etc. And find herself an altogether man, eh?

I named the "COMMON GROUNDS" for annulment.
I decided not to name your favorite sins.

>> Myth #4
>> IF AN ANNULMENT IS GRANTED THE CHILDREN WILL BE ILLEGITIMATE
>> Truth: The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only
>> with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at
>> all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding
>> children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the
>> civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects
>> under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the
>> children illegitimate.
>
>OH? So you say that they are only bastards per the RCC and their salvation, but civilly they are just fine?

Didn't say that, robt.
Why are you looking for a fight?
Are you really that stupid?

[Lucifer]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 05:00:08 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 19:37:38 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
>Stop making up shit about my religion.

What is your religion?

[P+Barker]

I am a practicing Roman Catholic.

[Miloch]

In article <7f6mvf50ut1agfjav...@4ax.com>, P+Barker says...

How much 'practice' does one need before being admitting as a church member?



*

[Robert]

On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<8ljlvfllmnnvqnpha...@4ax.com>):

You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.

>
> You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
> Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
> Are you still considred "saved?"

You are the one who isolated them all and called them children of an illegitimate relationship.
If it makes you uncomfortable, it should.

>
>
> > There can be no new marriage as there never was an old marriage. It renders all communion, etc. as invalid, all actions illegal and invalid per the RCC including all actions by any priest as the people
> > were judged to be doing things illegal per RC Dogma's and Doctrines.
>
> Perhaps you should read what I stated again.
> I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
> Stop making up shit about my religion.
> You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
> To confront liars and bullies.

Already in full parroting mode as you have nothing to say?

>
>
> > > Among the reasons why a party could seek an annulment, the panel
> > > included the discovery that a person in the marriage was in an
> > > extramarital relationship at the time of the marriage, when a spouse
> > > procured an abortion, and when one party lacked religious faith.Sep 8,
> > > 2015
> >
> > IOW's, if they become a Born Again Believer, believe in Creation as noted in Scripture or anything else deemed contrary to the RCC, then they are "out".
>
> Are you just plain stupid?
> No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.

You didn't deny it either, did you?

>
>
> > > Although the grounds for seeking an annulment differ, as can factors
> > > that may disqualify a person for an annulment, common grounds for
> > > annulment include the following:
> > > Marriage between close relatives. ...
> > > Mental incapacity. ...
> > > Underage marriage. ...
> > > Duress. ...
> > > Fraud. ...
> > > Bigamy.
> >
> > Why isn't Child abuse listed, or any form of sex with a RC Church leader? Or homosexuality.
>
> I named the "COMMON GROUNDS" for annulment.
> I decided not to name your favorite sins.

Oh? So you consider those sins favored? How sick is that?

>
>
> > So now, your wife can dismiss you since you are now Senile, have Parkinsons disease, Dementia, etc. And find herself an altogether man, eh?
>
> I named the "COMMON GROUNDS" for annulment.
> I decided not to name your favorite sins.

Ok, so you consider those to be sins?

>
>
> > > Myth #4
> > > IF AN ANNULMENT IS GRANTED THE CHILDREN WILL BE ILLEGITIMATE
> > > Truth: The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only
> > > with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at
> > > all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding
> > > children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the
> > > civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects
> > > under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the
> > > children illegitimate.
> >
> > OH? So you say that they are only bastards per the RCC and their salvation, but civilly they are just fine?
>
> Didn't say that, robt.
> Why are you looking for a fight?
> Are you really that stupid?

You were the one that said it was all an illegitimate relationship, and you were proud that it is your RCC dogma. It was you and your church that condemned the children, yet everyone can still take communion. How sick is that?

[Robert]

On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<7f6mvf50ut1agfjav...@4ax.com>):

One would think after all these years he would quit practicing and become the real thing.

[Mattb]

On Fri, 08 Jan 2021 19:50:24 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

True, wonder what she paid for this? In the RCC $$$ talk and make
holy.

[Mattb]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 05:00:08 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Patrick you are the one as well as your RCC that claims they were
born out of Wedlock. " a declaration from the church that a marriage
was never valid" 'Never Valid' is quite easy to understand.

>
>
>
>>There can be no new marriage as there never was an old marriage. It renders all communion, etc. as invalid, all actions illegal and invalid per the RCC including all actions by any priest as the people
>>were judged to be doing things illegal per RC Dogma's and Doctrines.
>
>Perhaps you should read what I stated again.
>I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
>Stop making up shit about my religion.
>You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
>To confront liars and bullies.

Then you need to confront yourself.

[Rod]

Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
of that marriage.

[Robert]

On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
(in article <rtfosr$pi$1...@dont-email.me>):

They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned. So per the RCC doc's the kids are what they declared them to be, forever. As the marriage was nullified. In their genealogy they will forever be thus.

Yes, per civil law they were married and divorced, but the premise of the RCC is that they rule in such matters and let the chips fall where they may.

The word of God has its own clear rules for the matter of divorce and "annulment", independent and separate from those of the RCC. Far more honorable to all.

[China Biden]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:31:22 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>> > > > > > The No Doubt frontwoman, 51

51? That's the biggest indecency here.

[Rod]

I don't agree with that. The Father of the children is known
and they cannot be bastards, regardless of what anyone says.

> As the marriage was nullified. In their genealogy they will forever be thus.

Not in my view, and I'm not alone in how I feel about that..

>
> Yes, per civil law they were married and divorced, but the premise of the RCC is that they rule in such matters and > >let the chips fall where they may.

I don't believe that was their intention, but if so it is far to harsh.

[Mattb]

True it isn't the kids fault for the sins of the father.

[Robert]

On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote

(in article <rtg7d6$1fh$1...@dont-email.me>):

In the real world that is true in case of a divorce, yet in a real word when the father is known, and a groupie bore his child out of wedlock then they are considered bastards, and that has been that way for centuries.

If someone disputes the RCC way in this and calls it all a farce I have no problem with that either. But this is a pretend game of annulment via the RCC.

>
>
> > As the marriage was nullified. In their genealogy they will forever be thus.
>
> Not in my view, and I'm not alone in how I feel about that..

Not in my personal view either and the woman in question cares about it all only superficially, hence the pretend game.

>
>
> >
> > Yes, per civil law they were married and divorced, but the premise of the RCC is that they rule in such matters and > >let the chips fall where they may.
>
> I don't believe that was their intention, but if so it is far to harsh.

It is not a well thought out plan. And I know that the counting of the children in such matters as illegitimate has affected families in the past. Usually in regards to inheritance.

Pity the kids who have to rationalize this whole thing out.

[Rod]

That doesn't make it right, Robert!

>
> If someone disputes the RCC way in this and calls it all a farce I have no problem with that either. But this is a pretend game of annulment via the RCC.
>>
>>
>>> As the marriage was nullified. In their genealogy they will forever be thus.
>>
>> Not in my view, and I'm not alone in how I feel about that..
>
> Not in my personal view either and the woman in question cares about it all only superficially, hence the pretend game.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, per civil law they were married and divorced, but the premise of the RCC is that they rule in such matters and > >let the chips fall where they may.
>>
>> I don't believe that was their intention, but if so it is far to harsh.
>
> It is not a well thought out plan. And I know that the counting of the children in such matters as illegitimate has affected families in the past. Usually in regards to inheritance.
>
> Pity the kids who have to rationalize this whole thing out.

Amen.

[P+Barker]

On 10 Jan 2021 08:55:05 -0800, Miloch <Miloch...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

There are many "catholics" out there who are members in name only.
This incudes the kennedys, pelosi, biden, kerry. etc.

I am a Catholic who actually attends church regularly, and try to
follow the Words of Jesus.

Any more questions?

[P+Barker]

I am not one of you hipocrytes who claim once saved, always saved.
I admit that I am a sinner, and I must work at being a good person.
Unlike you, I do not claim to be guaranteed a tricket to heaven.
I know better.

[P+Barker]

Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote

>> > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
>>
>> Maybe your little god tells you this.
>
>You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.

I never mentioned any bastards.
Why do you bring yourself into the equation?

>> You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>> Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
>> Are you still considred "saved?"
>
>You are the one who isolated them all and called them children of an illegitimate relationship.
>If it makes you uncomfortable, it should.

I didn't call the children: "bastards."
That was your little judgement.

>> I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
>> Stop making up shit about my religion.
>> You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
>> To confront liars and bullies.
>
>Already in full parroting mode as you have nothing to say?

I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
Haven't I made this clear enough?

>> No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.
>
>You didn't deny it either, did you?

I deny your interpretation of what Jesus taught us.

[P+Barker]

, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>>wrote:

>>>> The children were conceived during the marriage.
>>>> annulment – a declaration from the church that a marriage was never
>>>> valid – makes it possible for divorced Catholics to enter a new
>>>> marriage and still be eligible to receive Communion.Sep 9, 2015
>>>
>>>A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
>>
>>Maybe your little god tells you this.
>>You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>>Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
>>Are you still considred "saved?"
>
> Patrick you are the one as well as your RCC that claims they were
>born out of Wedlock. " a declaration from the church that a marriage
>was never valid" 'Never Valid' is quite easy to understand.

Yes, it is easy to understand for those of us with common snese.
If you wish to be considered a bastard, go for it.

Myth #4
IF AN ANNULMENT IS GRANTED THE CHILDREN WILL BE ILLEGITIMATE
Truth: The truth is that an ecclesiastical annulment is concerned only
with the spouses, and not the children. An annulment has no effect at
all on the legitimacy of children, or other arrangements regarding
children, such as custody or support. These are all concerns of the
civil law, and an ecclesiastical annulment has absolutely no effects
under civil law. It is a myth that granting an annulment makes the
children illegitimate.

>>I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
>>Stop making up shit about my religion.
>>You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
>>To confront liars and bullies.
>
> Then you need to confront yourself.

matty: you are the bully and the liar here.

[P+Barker]

Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote

>> > > > > > More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
>> > > > > > have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.

>> > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>>
>> Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
>> known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
>> have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
>> invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
>> of that marriage.
>
>They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned.

Divorce is a civil matter. Annulment is a different matter.
Try to learn the difference!

>So per the RCC doc's the kids are what they declared them to be, forever.

Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"
I don't think so. That would be you.
Another perfect example of robt making up shit.

>Yes, per civil law they were married and divorced, but the premise of the RCC is that they rule in such matters and let the chips fall where they may.

No, it isn't.
You lie again.

>The word of God has its own clear rules for the matter of divorce and "annulment", independent and separate from those of the RCC. Far more honorable to all.

Spell them out, dufus.

[P+Barker]

Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote

>> I don't agree with that. The Father of the children is known
>> and they cannot be bastards, regardless of what anyone says.
>
>In the real world that is true in case of a divorce, yet in a real word when the father is known, and a groupie bore his child out of wedlock then they are considered bastards, and that has been that way for centuries.

Well then..... it must be correct if it has been that way for
centuries. Do you still fall for the flat earth theory?

[P+Barker]

That is why we don't always blame you for what larry did.

[P+Barker]

There is a set price for the paperwork - just like there is a set
price for setting up any legal document - including drivers licences,
wills, and marriage licenses. Usually less than $100.00.

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<c9govfdfbdsh9n4jh...@4ax.com>):

Look, the gift of salvation comes from the Lord. He paid for it all and you cannot pay for any of it. His Gift to us who will receive it. If a person receives it and then renounces it, he is Lost. But God carries us through all the rough spots with his forgivenesses that he has already paid full price for.

This is one of the reasons His scripture says "it is not by works, lest any man boast."

Your pride is your downfall, your thinking you can fix anything is your downfall, your trust in the RCC is totally misplaced as we are to trust in the Lord.

God loves his children, and like a good father he understands us, why? Because Jesus lived the same life we do, he went through it all before us, that is why he is our High Priest in Heaven, as he understands all things. We may make mistakes and errors, but he understands and forgives, but if a person decides to "divorce" him there is no turning back and we have seen historical evidence of that with the Jew.

As yet, you have not received salvation if you have not been Born Again, and Jesus said that very clearly in scripture. Therefore you are lost the same as any heathen or pagan. Being a nice guy is great, if you can be one, but all that does is impress yourself and maybe a few people who don't know you, but it sure does not impress God. Scripture calls that type of a person "self-righteous" as they made themselves look god to others, but only the Righteous looks good to him, and satisfies Him. And that is a gift that God gives us of himself. That is how we are counted "Worthy".

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<3dgovftrkqnof70vk...@4ax.com>):

> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>
> > > > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
> > >
> > > Maybe your little god tells you this.
> >
> > You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.
>
> I never mentioned any bastards.
> Why do you bring yourself into the equation?

I didn't. You and your church did. Society has called the children of an unspecified relationship bastards for over 1,000 years, check your latin. And if what you said was meant as a dig, then let it be returned to you 10 fold.

>
>
> > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
> > > Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
> > > Are you still considred "saved?"
> >
> > You are the one who isolated them all and called them children of an illegitimate relationship.
> > If it makes you uncomfortable, it should.
>
> I didn't call the children: "bastards."
> That was your little judgement.

It is the judgment of society beginning over 1,000 years ago, with a latin language background.

>
>
> > > I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
> > > Stop making up shit about my religion.
> > > You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
> > > To confront liars and bullies.
> >
> > Already in full parroting mode as you have nothing to say?
>
> I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
> Haven't I made this clear enough?

Eh? I can't hear you, hypocrite.

>
>
> > > No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.
> >
> > You didn't deny it either, did you?
>
> I deny your interpretation of what Jesus taught us.

You have not receive any of his training, all you know is what perverts teach you, and you believe the excuses they give you for their sins against God and man.

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<rkkovfhhf37496npu...@4ax.com>):

It was the doctrine of the RCC.

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<2dkovftha7b16kpna...@4ax.com>):

> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
>
> > > > > > > > More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
> > > > > > > > have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.
>
> > > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
> > >
> > > Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
> > > known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
> > > have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
> > > invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
> > > of that marriage.
> >
> > They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned.
>
> Divorce is a civil matter. Annulment is a different matter.
> Try to learn the difference!

How stupid can you get? Annulment is a civil matter also. It is also a biblical matter totally unrelated to the RCC dogma and doctrine. What else is new to you?

>
>
> > So per the RCC doc's the kids are what they declared them to be, forever.
>
> Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"
> I don't think so. That would be you.
> Another perfect example of robt making up shit.

Yes as it is Latin. Anyone that renders something as invalid renders all that occurred within it as invalid. Try using a small amount of common sense, it won't hurt you.

The RCC has tried making excuses for that doctrine ever since they developed it. Those that are not blind, see it. Those that ignore the common sense and understanding of what all invalid means and makes of a situation are willfully blind. Like those that pray to Mary and the Saints and say they are not worshipping them.

>
>
> > Yes, per civil law they were married and divorced, but the premise of the RCC is that they rule in such matters and let the chips fall where they may.
>
> No, it isn't.
> You lie again.

Then prove it.

>
>
> > The word of God has its own clear rules for the matter of divorce and "annulment", independent and separate from those of the RCC. Far more honorable to all.
>
> Spell them out, dufus.

It is in Deut and Leviticus.

[Mattb]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:30:41 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't know Larry but you and he are much alike by what you post.

I do not blame Melanie Berkmen or Melissa Kalt for your sins. Unless
they aided in covering them up. Did you really harm your grand kids?
You are sick and a good Catholic.

[Mattb]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:28:11 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
>
>>> > > > > > More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
>>> > > > > > have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.
>
>
>>> > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>>>
>>> Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
>>> known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
>>> have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
>>> invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
>>> of that marriage.
>>
>>They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned.
>
>Divorce is a civil matter. Annulment is a different matter.
>Try to learn the difference!

For the right amount of money the RCC even excused murder and
pedophilia.

>
>
>>So per the RCC doc's the kids are what they declared them to be, forever.
>
>Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"

The kids are not at fault.

[Mattb]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:32:47 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

History shows how much honor and ethics the RCC has....No Much...How
was the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter paid for again? That is right
with deceit and lies.

[Mattb]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:20:07 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>
>
>>> > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
>>>
>>> Maybe your little god tells you this.
>>
>>You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.
>
>I never mentioned any bastards.

Was Barbara pregnant before your wedding?

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:39:21 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>(in article<c9govfdfbdsh9n4jh...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:06:48 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>> > (in article<7f6mvf50ut1agfjav...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 22:15:42 +1100, Lucifer
>> > > <LuciferMo...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 05:00:08 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, 09 Jan 2021 19:37:38 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
>> > > > > Stop making up shit about my religion.
>> > > >
>> > > > What is your religion?
>> > >
>> > > I am a practicing Roman Catholic.
>> >
>> > One would think after all these years he would quit practicing and become the real thing.
>>
>> I am not one of you hipocrytes who claim once saved, always saved.
>> I admit that I am a sinner, and I must work at being a good person.
>> Unlike you, I do not claim to be guaranteed a tricket to heaven.
>> I know better.
>
>Look, the gift of salvation comes from the Lord. He paid for it all and you cannot pay for any of it. His Gift to us who will receive it. If a person receives it and then renounces it, he is Lost.

Except for you.
You can insult, bully, lie all you want.
You still be saved......
What a lucky guy.

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:46:18 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>(in article<3dgovftrkqnof70vk...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>>
>> > > > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe your little god tells you this.
>> >
>> > You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.
>>
>> I never mentioned any bastards.
>> Why do you bring yourself into the equation?
>
>I didn't. You and your church did. Society has called the children of an unspecified relationship bastards for over 1,000 years, check your latin. And if what you said was meant as a dig, then let it be returned to you 10 fold.

The RCC does not call those children "bastards."
You did. And you blame society. Whatta laugh.

>> > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>> > > Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
>> > > Are you still considred "saved?"
>> >
>> > You are the one who isolated them all and called them children of an illegitimate relationship.
>> > If it makes you uncomfortable, it should.
>>
>> I didn't call the children: "bastards."
>> That was your little judgement.
>
>It is the judgment of society beginning over 1,000 years ago, with a latin language background.

Ahhhhhhhhh. Blame it on society....
Did Jesus speak "latin?"

> > > I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
>> > > Stop making up shit about my religion.
>> > > You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
>> > > To confront liars and bullies.
>> >
>> > Already in full parroting mode as you have nothing to say?
>>
>> I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
>> Haven't I made this clear enough?
>
>Eh? I can't hear you, hypocrite.

I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
Haven't I made this clear enough?



>> > > No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.
>> >
>> > You didn't deny it either, did you?
>>
>> I deny your interpretation of what Jesus taught us.
>
>You have not receive any of his training, all you know is what perverts teach you, and you believe the excuses they give you for their sins against God and man.

Talk about bullies...
What did your mother ever do to you?

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:50:09 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:20:07 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>>
>>
>>>> > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe your little god tells you this.
>>>
>>>You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.
>>
>>I never mentioned any bastards.
>
> Was Barbara pregnant before your wedding?

How often did larry make you suck his dick?

[P+Barker]

LIAR.

[P+Barker]

Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not blame Melanie Berkmen or Melissa Kalt for your sins. Unless
>they aided in covering them up. Did you really harm your grand kids?
>You are sick and a good Catholic.

Why do you wish to start this up again?

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:56:15 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>(in article<2dkovftha7b16kpna...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
>>
>> > > > > > > > More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
>> > > > > > > > have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.
>>
>> > > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>> > >
>> > > Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
>> > > known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
>> > > have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
>> > > invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
>> > > of that marriage.
>> >
>> > They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned.
>>
>> Divorce is a civil matter. Annulment is a different matter.
>> Try to learn the difference!
>
>How stupid can you get? Annulment is a civil matter also. It is also a biblical matter totally unrelated to the RCC dogma and doctrine. What else is new to you?

OK, if you wish to argue, go for it.
We were speaking of a Catholic Annulment, a Catholic document that is
processed by the RCC. You are just picking a fight. I suppose you
feel God accepts gay marriages then. You will also find marriage in
the bible. Do you really want to change the subject?

>> > So per the RCC doc's the kids are what they declared them to be, forever.
>>
>> Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"
>> I don't think so. That would be you.
>> Another perfect example of robt making up shit.
>
>Yes as it is Latin. Anyone that renders something as invalid renders all that occurred within it as invalid. Try using a small amount of common sense, it won't hurt you.

Stop being an ass hole.
If you can.

>The RCC has tried making excuses for that doctrine ever since they developed it. Those that are not blind, see it. Those that ignore the common sense and understanding of what all invalid means and makes of a situation are willfully blind.
> Like those that pray to Mary and the Saints and say they are not worshipping them.

Would you like to change the subject again?
Why do you pray to Mary?

>> > Yes, per civil law they were married and divorced, but the premise of the RCC is that they rule in such matters and let the chips fall where they may.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>> You lie again.
>
>Then prove it.

Rule in such matters? What rule?
Pick a rule, any rule.

>> > The word of God has its own clear rules for the matter of divorce and "annulment", independent and separate from those of the RCC. Far more honorable to all.
>>
>> Spell them out, dufus.
>
>It is in Deut and Leviticus.

Christians are not obligated to follow the old Jewish law.
Grow up.

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:41:26 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:28:11 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
>>
>>>> > > > > > More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
>>>> > > > > > have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.
>>
>>
>>>> > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
>>>> known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
>>>> have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
>>>> invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
>>>> of that marriage.
>>>
>>>They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned.
>>
>>Divorce is a civil matter. Annulment is a different matter.
>>Try to learn the difference!
>
> For the right amount of money the RCC even excused murder and
>pedophilia.

LIAR.

>>>So per the RCC doc's the kids are what they declared them to be, forever.
>>
>>Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"
>
> The kids are not at fault.

Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:42:56 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<Yawn> Right or ripe?
Make up your mind.

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<riiqvf1qfgra2tpcj...@4ax.com>):

You snipped what I wrote, it was all as applicable to me as it is to you. Don't fool yourself.

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<jliqvf1dfqlofqfqn...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:46:18 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > (in article<3dgovftrkqnof70vk...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > >
> > > > > > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe your little god tells you this.
> > > >
> > > > You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.
> > >
> > > I never mentioned any bastards.
> > > Why do you bring yourself into the equation?
> >
> > I didn't. You and your church did. Society has called the children of an unspecified relationship bastards for over 1,000 years, check your latin. And if what you said was meant as a dig, then let it be returned to you 10 fold.
>
> The RCC does not call those children "bastards."
> You did. And you blame society. Whatta laugh.

It made them bastards to God and the RCC by declaring them in an invalid relationship for 13 years. It declared them illegal.

>
>
> > > > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
> > > > > Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
> > > > > Are you still considred "saved?"
> > > >
> > > > You are the one who isolated them all and called them children of an illegitimate relationship.
> > > > If it makes you uncomfortable, it should.
> > >
> > > I didn't call the children: "bastards."
> > > That was your little judgement.
> >
> > It is the judgment of society beginning over 1,000 years ago, with a latin language background.
>
> Ahhhhhhhhh. Blame it on society....
> Did Jesus speak "latin?"

Yes, I am sure he did as it was also spoken in His day when he was on trial.

>
>
> > > > I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
> > > > > Stop making up shit about my religion.
> > > > > You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
> > > > > To confront liars and bullies.
> > > >
> > > > Already in full parroting mode as you have nothing to say?
> > >
> > > I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
> > > Haven't I made this clear enough?
> >
> > Eh? I can't hear you, hypocrite.
>
> I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
> Haven't I made this clear enough?

You feel bullied? Too bad your mommy is not around. :(

>
>
> > > > > No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't deny it either, did you?
> > >
> > > I deny your interpretation of what Jesus taught us.
> >
> > You have not receive any of his training, all you know is what perverts teach you, and you believe the excuses they give you for their sins against God and man.
>
> Talk about bullies...
> What did your mother ever do to you?

Poor boy, you wanna see your mommy, you feel so bullied.

Well I do have to say you are the spitting image of the dough boy. Must be taugh will everyone poking their fingers in your belly. Maybe someone should toss you in the oven to help you get a little crust on that belly of yours. :)

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<60jqvfd746u11f1ef...@4ax.com>):

"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow of the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan 1480-1521

The RCC also said that the earth did not move, that everything revolved around it. Chuckle. And so they called Galileo a heretic.

[Robert]

On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<45jqvf91e0cfodl7d...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:56:15 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > (in article<2dkovftha7b16kpna...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
> > > > > > > > > > have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.
> > >
> > > > > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
> > > > > known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
> > > > > have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
> > > > > invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
> > > > > of that marriage.
> > > >
> > > > They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned.
> > >
> > > Divorce is a civil matter. Annulment is a different matter.
> > > Try to learn the difference!
> >
> > How stupid can you get? Annulment is a civil matter also. It is also a biblical matter totally unrelated to the RCC dogma and doctrine. What else is new to you?
>
> OK, if you wish to argue, go for it.
> We were speaking of a Catholic Annulment, a Catholic document that is
> processed by the RCC. You are just picking a fight. I suppose you
> feel God accepts gay marriages then. You will also find marriage in
> the bible. Do you really want to change the subject?

You brought up the civil matter, I spoke to you of the RC dogma and doctrines and its effect on their own. You picked a fight and now you whine about it and feel all bullied, <SPLORF> Poor dough boy. Guess this is as far as I go with you on this. I am tired of your whining, parroting, and circular logic.

Plus when you get all involved on name calling it is a sure sign you have lost.

Now don't you be taking this out on your poor wife, poor boy. K?

[P+Barker]

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:33:46 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>(in article<jliqvf1dfqlofqfqn...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:46:18 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>> > (in article<3dgovftrkqnof70vk...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > > Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>> > >
>> > > > > > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Maybe your little god tells you this.
>> > > >
>> > > > You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.
>> > >
>> > > I never mentioned any bastards.
>> > > Why do you bring yourself into the equation?
>> >
>> > I didn't. You and your church did. Society has called the children of an unspecified relationship bastards for over 1,000 years, check your latin. And if what you said was meant as a dig, then let it be returned to you 10 fold.
>>
>> The RCC does not call those children "bastards."
>> You did. And you blame society. Whatta laugh.
>
>It made them bastards to God and the RCC by declaring them in an invalid relationship for 13 years. It declared them illegal.

Prove it.
First, quote God on this.
Then qupte the law.
Quote the Bible....
Just don't quote yourself.
You have no gravitas in this matter.

>>
>>
>> > > > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>> > > > > Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
>> > > > > Are you still considred "saved?"
>> > > >
>> > > > You are the one who isolated them all and called them children of an illegitimate relationship.
>> > > > If it makes you uncomfortable, it should.
>> > >
>> > > I didn't call the children: "bastards."
>> > > That was your little judgement.
>> >
>> > It is the judgment of society beginning over 1,000 years ago, with a latin language background.
>>
>> Ahhhhhhhhh. Blame it on society....
>> Did Jesus speak "latin?"
>
>Yes, I am sure he did as it was also spoken in His day when he was on trial.

You are sure?
Why not ask yer little god during yer next discussions with him?

>>
>>
>> > > > I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
>> > > > > Stop making up shit about my religion.
>> > > > > You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
>> > > > > To confront liars and bullies.
>> > > >
>> > > > Already in full parroting mode as you have nothing to say?
>> > >
>> > > I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
>> > > Haven't I made this clear enough?
>> >
>> > Eh? I can't hear you, hypocrite.
>>
>> I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
>> Haven't I made this clear enough?
>
>You feel bullied? Too bad your mommy is not around. :(

Why?
My mom is around.
Do you want her phone number?
She recently moved to Washington State.

>>
>>
>> > > > > No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.
>> > > >
>> > > > You didn't deny it either, did you?
>> > >
>> > > I deny your interpretation of what Jesus taught us.
>> >
>> > You have not receive any of his training, all you know is what perverts teach you, and you believe the excuses they give you for their sins against God and man.
>>
>> Talk about bullies...
>> What did your mother ever do to you?
>
>Poor boy, you wanna see your mommy, you feel so bullied.

Speak for yerself, ass-wipe.
I see Mom often enough.
We talked on Christmas Day.

Tell us about yer mum....

>Well I do have to say you are the spitting image of the dough boy. Must be taugh will everyone poking their fingers in your belly. Maybe someone should toss you in the oven to help you get a little crust on that belly of yours. :)

Does yer little god feel your insults are showing his love?
What a funny little man......

[P+Barker]

On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:43:48 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>(in article<60jqvfd746u11f1ef...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:47:10 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
>> > (in article<rkkovfhhf37496npu...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > > Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
>> > >
>> > > > > I don't agree with that. The Father of the children is known
>> > > > > and they cannot be bastards, regardless of what anyone says.
>> > > >
>> > > > In the real world that is true in case of a divorce, yet in a real word when the father is known, and a groupie bore his child out of wedlock then they are considered bastards, and that has been that way for centuries.
>> > >
>> > > Well then..... it must be correct if it has been that way for
>> > > centuries. Do you still fall for the flat earth theory?
>> >
>> > It was the doctrine of the RCC.
>>
>> LIAR.
>
>"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow of the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan 1480-1521

Was ferdinand a pope? Did he speak for the church?

>The RCC also said that the earth did not move, that everything revolved around it. Chuckle. And so they called Galileo a heretic.

Perhaps you can find a quote for this lie.
Or ... perhaps not.

[P+Barker]

Catholic annulment is not a civil matter. Grow up.

>I spoke to you of the RC dogma and doctrines and its effect on their own.

Nah. you made up shit.
You have no evidence for what you claim.
That is why I am here.
To confront you liars and bullies.

>You picked a fight and now you whine about it and feel all bullied, <SPLORF> Poor dough boy. Guess this is as far as I go with you on this. I am tired of your whining, parroting, and circular logic.

Maybe you need a spanking by yer mom.

>Plus when you get all involved on name calling it is a sure sign you have lost.

Do you mean like "dough boy?"

>Now don't you be taking this out on your poor wife, poor boy. K?

I'm still married to my first wife. Next month it will be 53 years.
Send me an anniversary present..... kill yourself.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<rt7rvfdgibkb3l0ur...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:33:46 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > (in article<jliqvf1dfqlofqfqn...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:46:18 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > > > (in article<3dgovftrkqnof70vk...@4ax.com>):
> > > >
> > > > > Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 10, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > A "marriage that was never valid" means the children are offspring of an invalid relationship and that their parents were never married and are now all bastards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe your little god tells you this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You wrote that yourself, taken from your dogma. You and the RCC at to blame for this, not me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never mentioned any bastards.
> > > > > Why do you bring yourself into the equation?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't. You and your church did. Society has called the children of an unspecified relationship bastards for over 1,000 years, check your latin. And if what you said was meant as a dig, then let it be returned to you 10 fold.
> > >
> > > The RCC does not call those children "bastards."
> > > You did. And you blame society. Whatta laugh.
> >
> > It made them bastards to God and the RCC by declaring them in an invalid relationship for 13 years. It declared them illegal.
>
> Prove it.
> First, quote God on this.
> Then qupte the law.
> Quote the Bible....
> Just don't quote yourself.
> You have no gravitas in this matter.

LOL, It isn't on me to prove as it was the RCC who made this stuff up, and you bite into it. They didn't think there would be any complaint about them delegitimizing the offspring when they delegitimized a marriage institution. You seem to forget that in a divorce the children were still the children of a legal or publicly recognized marriage. Not so when you delegitimize a contract, since everything that resulted from that contract with the RCC is now null and void. What's the big deal with eating a cracker when those that dispense them put you into the position of being spoiled offspring. Bastards.

Church records from the RCC centuries down the line will show that the parents of some children were not considered properly married by the RCC, so all their heirs will be descendants of bastard children. What a great legacy to leave behind. If I were RC I would tell the RCC to jam it, rather than put the kids into that position. In your mind, the selfish will of the parent overrides the importance of the child.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
> > > > > > > Do you feel that your little god thinks this is OK?
> > > > > > > Are you still considred "saved?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are the one who isolated them all and called them children of an illegitimate relationship.
> > > > > > If it makes you uncomfortable, it should.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't call the children: "bastards."
> > > > > That was your little judgement.
> > > >
> > > > It is the judgment of society beginning over 1,000 years ago, with a latin language background.
> > >
> > > Ahhhhhhhhh. Blame it on society....
> > > Did Jesus speak "latin?"
> >
> > Yes, I am sure he did as it was also spoken in His day when he was on trial.
>
> You are sure?
> Why not ask yer little god during yer next discussions with him?

Read your scripture, Jesus spoke to the Judge. That you disparage God shows your lack of respect.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > I gave you the RCC dogma pertaining to this,
> > > > > > > Stop making up shit about my religion.
> > > > > > > You are the reason why I hang around this newsgroup.
> > > > > > > To confront liars and bullies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Already in full parroting mode as you have nothing to say?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
> > > > > Haven't I made this clear enough?
> > > >
> > > > Eh? I can't hear you, hypocrite.
> > >
> > > I have plenty to say to all you liars and bullies.
> > > Haven't I made this clear enough?
> >
> > You feel bullied? Too bad your mommy is not around. :(
>
> Why?
> My mom is around.
> Do you want her phone number?
> She recently moved to Washington State.

Then call her you whining snot nosed wimp. You are always bragging how you kick but but here you are again feeling bullied.<snicker>

PLUS! Everyone see's pitiful pat whining.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > No one mentioned this "born again" crap - except for you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn't deny it either, did you?
> > > > >
> > > > > I deny your interpretation of what Jesus taught us.
> > > >
> > > > You have not receive any of his training, all you know is what perverts teach you, and you believe the excuses they give you for their sins against God and man.
> > >
> > > Talk about bullies...
> > > What did your mother ever do to you?
> >
> > Poor boy, you wanna see your mommy, you feel so bullied.
>
> Speak for yerself, ass-wipe.
> I see Mom often enough.
> We talked on Christmas Day.

Whoo hoo, a mommies boy, a bullied dough boy with his feelings hurt.

>
>
> Tell us about yer mum....
>
> > Well I do have to say you are the spitting image of the dough boy. Must be taugh will everyone poking their fingers in your belly. Maybe someone should toss you in the oven to help you get a little crust on that belly of yours. :)
>
> Does yer little god feel your insults are showing his love?
> What a funny little man......

Hey, hey! I'm not the mommies boy playing the pitiful pat game,<snicker>

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<h68rvftgt39lkvcok...@4ax.com>):

> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:43:48 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > (in article<60jqvfd746u11f1ef...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:47:10 -0800, Robert<i...@love.god> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 11, 2021, P+Barker wrote
> > > > (in article<rkkovfhhf37496npu...@4ax.com>):
> > > >
> > > > > Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't agree with that. The Father of the children is known
> > > > > > > and they cannot be bastards, regardless of what anyone says.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the real world that is true in case of a divorce, yet in a real word when the father is known, and a groupie bore his child out of wedlock then they are considered bastards, and that has been that way for centuries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well then..... it must be correct if it has been that way for
> > > > > centuries. Do you still fall for the flat earth theory?
> > > >
> > > > It was the doctrine of the RCC.
> > >
> > > LIAR.
> >
> > "The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow of the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan 1480-1521
>
> Was ferdinand a pope? Did he speak for the church?

Is pitiful pat a pope? Does he speak for the church?

>
>
> > The RCC also said that the earth did not move, that everything revolved around it. Chuckle. And so they called Galileo a heretic.
>
> Perhaps you can find a quote for this lie.
> Or ... perhaps not.

It is all over the internet, in the doc's of the RCC, took them 300 years to undo their calling him a heretic and pulling him out of hell and replanting him in RC heaven. Yeah, everything is fluid in the RCC.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<v98rvfludkk818b19...@4ax.com>):

You were the one who said divorce is a civil matter. And related it to the RC annulment.

>
>
> > I spoke to you of the RC dogma and doctrines and its effect on their own.
>
> Nah. you made up shit.
> You have no evidence for what you claim.
> That is why I am here.
> To confront you liars and bullies.

Ya, sure, pitiful pat, the one who feels all bullied and has to call his mommy.
Too bad she didn't teach you to have some common sense.

>
>
> > You picked a fight and now you whine about it and feel all bullied, <SPLORF> Poor dough boy. Guess this is as far as I go with you on this. I am tired of your whining, parroting, and circular logic.
>
> Maybe you need a spanking by yer mom.

OH? So your mommy ruled the roost and you inherited your pitiful Patti feelings from your Dad?

>
>
> > Plus when you get all involved on name calling it is a sure sign you have lost.
>
> Do you mean like "dough boy?"

Anyone who see's your picture would recognize that immediately. You are what you are.

>
>
> > Now don't you be taking this out on your poor wife, poor boy. K?
>
> I'm still married to my first wife. Next month it will be 53 years.
> Send me an anniversary present..... kill yourself.

Oh, so now you are inciting suicide? I am sure that busted another RC rule.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:11:20 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

I've never met this Larry. Though you and he are much alike how
many times have you had Kaan do you and did Melanie cover for you? Did
Barbara?

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:21:58 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:41:26 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:28:11 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 10, 2021, Rod wrote
>>>
>>>>> > > > > > More than five years after their official split, Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale
>>>>> > > > > > have been granted an annulment by the Catholic Church, a new report claims.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> > You should not be calling children: 'bastards."
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. The children should not be faulted or punished because the
>>>>> known parents had a defect in their marriage. However the marriage may
>>>>> have been valid at the beginning but infidelty during the 1st year
>>>>> invalidates the marriage but does NOT invalidate the births coming
>>>>> of that marriage.
>>>>
>>>>They were married 13 years, reason for the divorce was irreconcilable differences, no infidelity mentioned.
>>>
>>>Divorce is a civil matter. Annulment is a different matter.
>>>Try to learn the difference!
>>
>> For the right amount of money the RCC even excused murder and
>>pedophilia.
>
>LIAR.

No sadly that isn't a lie.

>
>
>>>>So per the RCC doc's the kids are what they declared them to be, forever.
>>>
>>>Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"
>>
>> The kids are not at fault.
>
>Did the RCC decide to call the children "bastards?"

Don't know maybe they just decided they were more victims for the
priest. You tell me.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:22:54 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

Had to go for a grammar flame as you know they did use deceit and
false doctrines and well as some force to pay for parts of the Vatican
as well as slave labor. Not something a true Church of Jesus would
do.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:15:10 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You started it. I have no worries as you can't even provide my full
name all you have is nothing. How sad.

I'll e printing more next time you open the box. New stuff but
accurate.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, Mattb wrote
(in article<slrrvf9vn953ub754...@4ax.com>):

Years from now when his grandkids run across his comments on the internet. And why he defended child abusers.

[Mattb]

I've considered sending some of his more colorful post to Boston and
the Dayton forums.

[P+Barker]

Can you do yourself a favor?
Stop fucking around with my kids names here.
Someone has applied for unemployment for both of them.
And the BS follows back to Washington state.
Social security numbers were gotten somehow.
Leave my kids alone.

[P+Barker]

Liar.
Prove it.

>> Speak for yerself, ass-wipe.
>> I see Mom often enough.
>> We talked on Christmas Day.
>
>Whoo hoo, a mommies boy, a bullied dough boy with his feelings hurt.

>> Does yer little god feel your insults are showing his love?
>> What a funny little man......

>Hey, hey! I'm not the mommies boy playing the pitiful pat game,<snicker>

Tell us about yer mum.....

[P+Barker]

Cough up some proof.

[P+Barker]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:49:07 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Does that include screwing with my kids some more?
Be careful ass wipe.
I have a long memory.
And, I am starting to plan my next trip to Wash.

[P+Barker]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:03:29 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Oh, save yourself some grief.
The last bitch that did that has never been heard of again.

[P+Barker]

Stop lying.
Don't you ever get tired of maing up shit?
Annulment and divorce are NOT related.
Grow up.

>> > I spoke to you of the RC dogma and doctrines and its effect on their own.
>>
>> Nah. you made up shit.
>> You have no evidence for what you claim.
>> That is why I am here.
>> To confront you liars and bullies.
>
>Ya, sure, pitiful pat, the one who feels all bullied and has to call his mommy.
>Too bad she didn't teach you to have some common sense.

WOW.
What did yer mom ever do to you?
Would you like my mom's phone number so you can bully her?

>
>> > You picked a fight and now you whine about it and feel all bullied, <SPLORF> Poor dough boy. Guess this is as far as I go with you on this. I am tired of your whining, parroting, and circular logic.
>>
>> Maybe you need a spanking by yer mom.
>
>OH? So your mommy ruled the roost and you inherited your pitiful Patti feelings from your Dad?

WOW.
What did yer mom ever do to you?
Would you like my mom's phone number so you can bully her?

>> > Plus when you get all involved on name calling it is a sure sign you have lost.
>>
>> Do you mean like "dough boy?"
>
>Anyone who see's your picture would recognize that immediately. You are what you are.

Soooooooooooo. You don't call that name calling.

>> > Now don't you be taking this out on your poor wife, poor boy. K?
>>
>> I'm still married to my first wife. Next month it will be 53 years.
>> Send me an anniversary present..... kill yourself.
>
>Oh, so now you are inciting suicide? I am sure that busted another RC rule.

I am not in charge of your birthday gifts to me.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:13:13 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

LOL You are not to be feared, what you don't want people to read
the truth?

Now I really am considering it.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:12:17 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:49:07 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:15:10 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not blame Melanie Berkmen or Melissa Kalt for your sins. Unless
>>>>they aided in covering them up. Did you really harm your grand kids?
>>>>You are sick and a good Catholic.
>>>
>>>Why do you wish to start this up again?
>>
>> You started it. I have no worries as you can't even provide my full
>>name all you have is nothing. How sad.
>>
>> I'll e printing more next time you open the box. New stuff but
>>accurate.
>
>
>Does that include screwing with my kids some more?

Maybe let people call them and ask why you are as you are.

>Be careful ass wipe.
>I have a long memory.
>And, I am starting to plan my next trip to Wash.

I'm so scared ROFL. You are a joke old man.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<kkesvfp0pqbrgdnl0...@4ax.com>):

It is real simple, even for you, just copy is name from this post and paste it into you favorite search engine with Catholic, what out for all the popups.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<gpesvf9m9lqjl79p6...@4ax.com>):

Go ahead and post it.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:01:15 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

Then don't open the box. Your choice old man.

>Someone has applied for unemployment for both of them.
>And the BS follows back to Washington state.

I don't believe you.

>Social security numbers were gotten somehow.

Good try if you believe I did that please report it ASAP.


>Leave my kids alone.

Don't open the box.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:16:36 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

She doesn't have a direct number.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, Mattb wrote

(in article<uahsvft6ijjgprbq8...@4ax.com>):

I think he is hinting that he needs a package of adult diapers once he gets there. For him, not his mum.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, Mattb wrote

(in article<4lhsvfh8htkohouum...@4ax.com>):

Hmmm. I sort of expected that.

[Robert]

On Jan 12, 2021, Mattb wrote

(in article<oehsvfphrl7eb0ml6...@4ax.com>):

If what he said were true, then there would be an address to send the checks to. Why does he lie about such things?

[P+Barker]

So there are a lot of catholic bashers out there.
That doesn't prove your premise.
PROVE where the Catholic Church EVER said the earth does not move....

[P+Barker]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:56:11 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>

And be sorry later.

[P+Barker]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:58:32 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:12:17 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:49:07 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:15:10 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not blame Melanie Berkmen or Melissa Kalt for your sins. Unless
>>>>>they aided in covering them up. Did you really harm your grand kids?
>>>>>You are sick and a good Catholic.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you wish to start this up again?
>>>
>>> You started it. I have no worries as you can't even provide my full
>>>name all you have is nothing. How sad.
>>>
>>> I'll e printing more next time you open the box. New stuff but
>>>accurate.
>>
>>
>>Does that include screwing with my kids some more?
>
> Maybe let people call them and ask why you are as you are.

Why?
You have already proven that you are an ass hole.

>
>>Be careful ass wipe.
>>I have a long memory.
>>And, I am starting to plan my next trip to Wash.
>
> I'm so scared ROFL. You are a joke old man.

You should be.

[P+Barker]

I'll bet you are proud of that little snippet, aren't you?

[P+Barker]

How about if you give me your address, and I'll deliver it to you
personally?

[P+Barker]

Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>>wrote:

>>>>>>>>Now all those children are officially born out of wedlock, per the annulment. It would have been less expensive, and less harmful if she just paid her RC Sin Tax.(better known as Indulgences)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>True, wonder what she paid for this? In the RCC $$$ talk and make
>>>>>>>holy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is a set price for the paperwork - just like there is a set
>>>>>>price for setting up any legal document - including drivers licences,
>>>>>>wills, and marriage licenses. Usually less than $100.00.
>>>>>
>>>>> History shows how much honor and ethics the RCC has....No Much...How
>>>>>was the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter paid for again? That is right
>>>>>with deceit and lies.
>>>>
>>>><Yawn> Right or ripe?
>>>>Make up your mind.
>>>
>>> Had to go for a grammar flame as you know they did use deceit and
>>>false doctrines and well as some force to pay for parts of the Vatican
>>>as well as slave labor. Not something a true Church of Jesus would
>>>do.
>>
>>
>>Can you do yourself a favor?
>>Stop fucking around with my kids names here.
>
> Then don't open the box. Your choice old man.

Keep it up/
I promise you will be sorry.

>
>>Someone has applied for unemployment for both of them.
>>And the BS follows back to Washington state.
>
> I don't believe you.

I don't care.
The unemployment office actually called one daughter's school to see
if she was unemployed. They knew her SSAN.

>
>
>>Social security numbers were gotten somehow.
>
> Good try if you believe I did that please report it ASAP.

It was.

>>Leave my kids alone.
>
> Don't open the box.

Or what?
You will show me whAT A BIG ASS HOLE YOU ARE?
Is that how you operate?

[P+Barker]

It was reported once the school informed her that the unemployment
office actually called them to see if she had been recently been let
go. I don't know why you feel I am lying. My point is that people
should not involve other family members when they are pissed.

[Robert]

On Jan 13, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<53utvf9ilj5p4fppe...@4ax.com>):

So you lied, eh?

[P+Barker]

Would you like my mom's phone number so that you can bully her?

[Robert]

On Jan 13, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<4onuvflh7d08nth8j...@4ax.com>):

You offered it and after some though about it I accepted the offer. Come to find out she has no private line, or does she? Cough it up as you stated.

[Mattb]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:38:43 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

Not worried.

[Mattb]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:39:41 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:58:32 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:12:17 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:49:07 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 02:15:10 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not blame Melanie Berkmen or Melissa Kalt for your sins. Unless
>>>>>>they aided in covering them up. Did you really harm your grand kids?
>>>>>>You are sick and a good Catholic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you wish to start this up again?
>>>>
>>>> You started it. I have no worries as you can't even provide my full
>>>>name all you have is nothing. How sad.
>>>>
>>>> I'll e printing more next time you open the box. New stuff but
>>>>accurate.
>>>
>>>
>>>Does that include screwing with my kids some more?
>>
>> Maybe let people call them and ask why you are as you are.
>
>Why?
>You have already proven that you are an ass hole.

You open the box and then whine......LOL

>
>
>
>>
>>>Be careful ass wipe.
>>>I have a long memory.
>>>And, I am starting to plan my next trip to Wash.
>>
>> I'm so scared ROFL. You are a joke old man.
>
>You should be.

Not really.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:29:43 -0800, Robert <i...@love.god> wrote:

True...

[Mattb]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:41:25 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

LOL Careful Robert Patrick will get angry..

[Mattb]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:47:59 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>

Well I'm not related to this Larry guy and yet you post that I am,
insulting my dead father.

I'll contact the school and let them know of your suspicion so they
can clear my name.

[Mattb]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:45:12 -0500, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>>wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>Now all those children are officially born out of wedlock, per the annulment. It would have been less expensive, and less harmful if she just paid her RC Sin Tax.(better known as Indulgences)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>True, wonder what she paid for this? In the RCC $$$ talk and make
>>>>>>>>holy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is a set price for the paperwork - just like there is a set
>>>>>>>price for setting up any legal document - including drivers licences,
>>>>>>>wills, and marriage licenses. Usually less than $100.00.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History shows how much honor and ethics the RCC has....No Much...How
>>>>>>was the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter paid for again? That is right
>>>>>>with deceit and lies.
>>>>>
>>>>><Yawn> Right or ripe?
>>>>>Make up your mind.
>>>>
>>>> Had to go for a grammar flame as you know they did use deceit and
>>>>false doctrines and well as some force to pay for parts of the Vatican
>>>>as well as slave labor. Not something a true Church of Jesus would
>>>>do.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you do yourself a favor?
>>>Stop fucking around with my kids names here.
>>
>> Then don't open the box. Your choice old man.
>
>Keep it up/
>I promise you will be sorry.

How will I be sorry....details.

>
>
>>
>>>Someone has applied for unemployment for both of them.
>>>And the BS follows back to Washington state.
>>
>> I don't believe you.
>
>I don't care.
>The unemployment office actually called one daughter's school to see
>if she was unemployed. They knew her SSAN.

OK that has happened much across the USA.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>Social security numbers were gotten somehow.
>>
>> Good try if you believe I did that please report it ASAP.
>
>It was.

Good then I will contact the school (Suffolk University
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry) and verify and then go after
her.

>
>
>>>Leave my kids alone.
>>
>> Don't open the box.
>
>Or what?
>You will show me whAT A BIG ASS HOLE YOU ARE?
>Is that how you operate?

If you don't open the box you won't have a reason to whine.

[Robert]

On Jan 13, 2021, Mattb wrote
(in article<ap0vvft51mgam1jhl...@4ax.com>):

Hmmm, I didn't pay close enough attention to his reply.

SOooooooo Pat, gimme a date and time and flight number into LAX and I'll give you the address

[P+Barker]

Do you plan to bully her also?

[P+Barker]

You don't live near LAX.

[P+Barker]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 15:36:19 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>

Excellent.
However, they will not be investagating.

[P+Barker]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 15:41:01 -0800, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Pain. Lots of it. Then disappearance.

>>>>Someone has applied for unemployment for both of them.
>>>>And the BS follows back to Washington state.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you.
>>
>>I don't care.
>>The unemployment office actually called one daughter's school to see
>>if she was unemployed. They knew her SSAN.
>
> OK that has happened much across the USA.

But I only know ONE ass hole who would enjoy doing this.

>>>>Social security numbers were gotten somehow.
>>>
>>> Good try if you believe I did that please report it ASAP.
>>
>>It was.
>
> Good then I will contact the school (Suffolk University
>Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry) and verify and then go after
>her.

Why do you think the school would investigate?

>>>>Leave my kids alone.
>>>
>>> Don't open the box.
>>
>>Or what?
>>You will show me whAT A BIG ASS HOLE YOU ARE?
>>Is that how you operate?
>
> If you don't open the box you won't have a reason to whine.

Stop calling me a pedo.
And I will stop calling you a pedo defender of yer dad.

[Robert]

On Jan 14, 2021, P+Barker wrote
(in article<m5e00gdtuu6duf4sk...@4ax.com>):

Oh really?

[P+Barker]

s

7:45am to - 5:42pm
United logo
United
3 cleaning and safety practices
12h 57m (2 stops) Available amenitiesWi-Fi, Entertainment, and Power
information
Departure airport: DAY. Layovers: ORD - LAS. Arrival airport: LAX.DAY
- ORD - LAS - LAX
United 3890 operated by Air Wisconsin DBA United Express
$289
roundtrip
SelectSelect result 6 when sorted by price
Details and baggage fees for result 6Details & baggage fees
Roundtrip price for 1 traveler, including taxes and fees: $288.26
You'll always get the best priceOpens in new window. We guarantee it.
· Free Cancellation within 24 hours of booking!
7:45am to 8:10am 1h 25m
7:45am to 8:10am 1h 25m
Dayton to Chicago
James M. Cox Dayton Intl. (DAY) to O'Hare Intl. (ORD)
United 3890 operated by Air Wisconsin DBA United Express
Economy / Coach (K)
Canadair Regional Jet
layover 1h stop Chicago (ORD)
9:10am to 11:09am 3h 59m
9:10am to 11:09am 3h 59m
Chicago to Las Vegas
O'Hare Intl. (ORD) to McCarran Intl. (LAS)
United 284
Economy / Coach (K)
Boeing 737-900
layover 5h 21m stop Las Vegas (LAS)
4:30pm to 5:42pm 1h 12m
4:30pm to 5:42pm 1h 12m
Las Vegas to Los Angeles
McCarran Intl. (LAS) to Los Angeles Intl. (LAX)
United 1861
Economy / Coach (G)
Boeing 737-900
Seats
Preview availability
Estimated bag fees
Carry on: No fee
1st checked bag: $70.00 up to 23 kg
2nd checked bag: $90.00 up to 23 kg
Confirm bag fees, weight and size restrictions with UnitedOpens in a
new window

Total distance
1,983 mi


++++++ Now, give me the address.

[Robert]

On Jan 14, 2021, P+Barker wrote

(in article<kld10gpgcdj1va41e...@4ax.com>):

Where is your flight # and arrival time, and since you are trying to play games, the ticket number. Oh, also give your departure time for the round trip ticket.