Re: They claim they don't have sex with animals

[Parkle Bumpstein]

In article <20120428183052....@fidemturbare.com>
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:59:32 -0400
> Sparks <spa...@aec.gov> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:22:37 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> > atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:39:52 -0400
> > >James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 4/21/12 6:36 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:19:55 -0400
> > >> > James Riske<james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On 4/20/12 11:59 PM, Syd M. wrote:
> > >> >>> On Apr 20, 2:59 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> > >> >>> goddess"<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
> > >> >>>> "Syd M."<pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>> On Apr 20, 6:33 am, "Wrecked'um Rooter"
> > >> >>>>> <wreckedumroo...@homodepot.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>> Here is proof homosexuals do.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> No, it's only proof that you lot lie.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If a homosexual person practices beastiality, might that not
> > >> >>>> classify them as bi-sexual? Or is there some other term for
> > >> >>>> this? I'm thinking that perhaps "homosexual" might not be the
> > >> >>>> most suitable classification.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The individual would be classified as 'weird', not homosexual.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The person is clearly gay.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please clarify your definition of "gay" in this context.
> > >>
> > >> Quite simple, a male taking a dick in its ass, clearly a sick
> > >> faggot with a mentally ill fixation on penis, a fixation that is
> > >> so strong it doesn't matter what the penis is attached to.
> > >
> > >Do you mean to exclude the recipient partner in that definition?
> > >What qualifies this activity as "sick" and "fixated" and certifiable
> > >as a "mental illness?"
> >
> > The legitimate APA for a starter.
> [snip - quoted text not replied to]
>
> Assuming the "APA" is the American Psychological Association, perhaps
> you can correct me if my information is incorrect?
>

The APA as an authoritative source of clinical diagnosis for
anything is laughable. They have about as much credibility as a
pack of rat salesmen wearing pink suits. Their "discipline" is
based on fads and "pull it out of your ass" disorders.

APA means "Asshole Packers Anonymous" in this day and age.
Until the dick suckers infiltrated it, the APA held that
homosexual and lesbian behaviors were mental illnesses - which
they are. Now, the APA is whoring themselves for insurance
money. If a disorder doesn't exist, they invent one and give it
a classification so they can get paid for "treating" it.

Sybil was a head shrinker hoax that became an accepted reality
by the putzes in the APA. That's the kind of gullible idiots
they are.