Re: My Comings and Goings
Alan Sailsbury
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
> The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> In article <yZnRm.1087$H23...@newsfe11.ams2>,
>> john smith <the_jo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
>>>> There is a lot more to fun sex than just a guy sticking his
>>>> member up a woman's vagina.
>>> Try telling *that* to Yads and you'll probably be called "perverted"... ;-)
>> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
>
> So if a man or woman is infertile either naturally (or through manual
> intervention) they shouldn't have sex? Good luck with trying to sell
> that to people.
>
It explains why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Who's going to go out with
someone who sees sex as such a soulless arrangement?
The Doctor
TRolls Alan Sailsbury.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
Loaf of Bread
> Andy Leighton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> john smith <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> >>>> There is a lot more to fun sex than just a guy sticking his
> >>>> member up a woman's vagina.
> >>> Try telling *that* to Yads and you'll probably be called "perverted"... Â ;-)
> >> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
>
> > So if a man or woman is infertile either naturally (or through manual
> > intervention) they shouldn't have sex? Â Good luck with trying to sell
> > that to people.
>
> It explains why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Who's going to go out with
> someone who sees sex as such a soulless arrangement?
I think Yads leads a boring and pointless existence.
If he had sex once in a while, even just once a year, he'd be a much
happier and better adjusted person.
Loaf of Bread
> In article <Ct-dnfeMOOlkAovWnZ2dnUVZ8mpi4...@bt.com>,
> Alan Sailsbury  <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Andy Leighton wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
> >> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>> john smith <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> There is a lot more to fun sex than just a guy sticking his
> >>>>> member up a woman's vagina.
> >>>> Try telling *that* to Yads and you'll probably be called "perverted"... Â ;-)
> >>> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
>
> >> So if a man or woman is infertile either naturally (or through manual
> >> intervention) they shouldn't have sex? Â Good luck with trying to sell
> >> that to people.
>
> >It explains why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Who's going to go out with
> >someone who sees sex as such a soulless arrangement?
>
> TRolls Alan Sailsbury.
Usual pointless response.
Do us a favor Yads. Go out and get laid.
John Fleming
desk in the scriptorium Loaf of Bread <john...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> $On Dec 2, 10:13�am, Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> Andy Leighton wrote:
> $> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
> $> > � � � � � � � � �The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> $> >> In article <yZnRm.1087$H23....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> $> >> john smith <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> $> >>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> $> >>>> There is a lot more to fun sex than just a guy sticking his
> $> >>>> member up a woman's vagina.
> $> >>> Try telling *that* to Yads and you'll probably be called "perverted"... �;-)
> $> >> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
> $>
> $> > So if a man or woman is infertile either naturally (or through manual
> $> > intervention) they shouldn't have sex? �Good luck with trying to sell
> $> > that to people.
> $>
> $> It explains why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Who's going to go out with
> $> someone who sees sex as such a soulless arrangement?
> $
> $I think Yads leads a boring and pointless existence.
> $
> $If he had sex once in a while, even just once a year, he'd be a much
> $happier and better adjusted person.
He could do that, and not even violate his religious
beliefs, if he found a woman who would marry him.
--
John Fleming
Edmonton, Canada
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
Mr.Smartypants
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:35:01 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
"IF"..............that's the operative word.
> --
>
> John Fleming
> Edmonton, Canada
>
> Â Â Â Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
> Â Â Â And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
> Â Â Â With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
> Â Â Â Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
> Â Â Â Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Fleming
desk in the scriptorium "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
> $On Dec 3, 9:49�pm, John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:35:01 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
> $> desk in the scriptorium Loaf of Bread <johnt...@hotmail.com>
> $> wrote:
> $> > $On Dec 2, 10:13�am, Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> > $> Andy Leighton wrote:
> $> > $> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
> $> > $> > � � � � � � � � �The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> $> > $> >> In article <yZnRm.1087$H23....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> $> > $> >> john smith <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> $> > $> >>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> $> > $> >>>> There is a lot more to fun sex than just a guy sticking his
> $> > $> >>>> member up a woman's vagina.
> $> > $> >>> Try telling *that* to Yads and you'll probably be called "perverted"... �;-)
> $> > $> >> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
> $> > $>
> $> > $> > So if a man or woman is infertile either naturally (or through manual
> $> > $> > that to people.
> $> > $>
> $> > $> It explains why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Who's going to go out with
> $> > $
> $> > $I think Yads leads a boring and pointless existence.
> $> > $
> $> > $If he had sex once in a while, even just once a year, he'd be a much
> $>
> $> He could do that, and not even violate his religious
> $> beliefs, if he found a woman who would marry him.
> $>
> $
> $
> $"IF"..............that's the operative word.
Well, if he treats women the way he treats them here on
Usenet, it's not likely to happen.
Women don't like being called whores.
Mr.Smartypants
Yads seems to have strange notions as to what women like and don't
like.
> --
>
> John Fleming
> Edmonton, Canada
>
> Â Â Â Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
> Â Â Â And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
> Â Â Â With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
> Â Â Â Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
John Fleming
desk in the scriptorium "Mr.Smartypants" <bc...@canada.com>
wrote:
> $On Dec 5, 2:04�pm, John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:55:35 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
> $> desk in the scriptorium "Mr.Smartypants"
> $> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:
> $> > $On Dec 3, 9:49�pm, John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $> > $> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:35:01 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
> $> > $> desk in the scriptorium Loaf of Bread <johnt...@hotmail.com>
> $> > $> wrote:
> $> > $> > $On Dec 2, 10:13�am, Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> > $> > $> Andy Leighton wrote:
> $> > $> > $> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
> $> > $> > $> > � � � � � � � � �The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> $> > $> > $> >> In article <yZnRm.1087$H23....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> $> > $> > $> >> john smith <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> $> > $> > $> >>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> $> > $> > $> >>>> There is a lot more to fun sex than just a guy sticking his
> $> > $> > $> >>>> member up a woman's vagina.
> $> > $> > $> >>> Try telling *that* to Yads and you'll probably be called "perverted"... �;-)
> $> > $> > $> >> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
> $> > $> > $>
> $> > $> > $> > So if a man or woman is infertile either naturally (or through manual
> $> > $> > $> > that to people.
> $> > $> > $>
> $> > $> > $> It explains why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Who's going to go out with
> $> > $> > $
> $> > $> > $I think Yads leads a boring and pointless existence.
> $> > $> > $
> $> > $> > $If he had sex once in a while, even just once a year, he'd be a much
> $> > $>
> $> > $> He could do that, and not even violate his religious
> $> > $>
> $> > $
> $> > $
> $> > $"IF"..............that's the operative word.
> $> Well, if he treats women the way he treats them here on
> $> Usenet, it's not likely to happen.
> $>
> $> Women don't like being called whores.
> $
> $Yads seems to have strange notions as to what women like and don't
> $like.
Some very strange notions.
The Doctor
The Doctor
Mr.Smartypants <bc...@canada.com> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 2:04=A0pm, John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 11:55:35 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
>> desk in the scriptorium "Mr.Smartypants"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> > $> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:35:01 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
>> > $> desk in the scriptorium Loaf of Bread <johnt...@hotmail.com>
>> > $> wrote:
>> > $> > $> Andy Leighton wrote:
>> > $> > $> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
>nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>> > $> > $> >> In article <yZnRm.1087$H23....@newsfe11.ams2>,
>> > $> > $> >> john smith <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > $> > $> >>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
>s
>> > $> > $> >>>> member up a woman's vagina.
>erverted"... =A0;-)
>> > $> > $> >> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
>> > $> > $>
>h manual
>> > $> > $> > intervention) they shouldn't have sex? =A0Good luck with tryi=
>ng to sell
>> > $> > $> > that to people.
>> > $> > $>
> out with
>> > $> > $> someone who sees sex as such a soulless arrangement?
>> > $> > $
>> > $> > $I think Yads leads a boring and pointless existence.
>> > $> > $
>uch
>> > $> > $happier and better adjusted person.
>> > $>
>> > $> He could do that, and not even violate his religious
>> > $> beliefs, if he found a woman who would marry him.
>> > $>
>> > $
>> > $
>> > $"IF"..............that's the operative word.
>>
>> Well, if he treats women the way he treats them here on
>> Usenet, it's not likely to happen.
>>
>> Women don't like being called whores.
>>
>
>
>Yads seems to have strange notions as to what women like and don't
>like.
>
>
>
>
>> --
>>
>> John Fleming
>> Edmonton, Canada
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
>> =A0 =A0 =A0With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
I prefer ladies to women. BTW did you enjoy the link I sent you.
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
I think we all know Yads will never find a girlfriend, never mind a
wife. Maybe around age 70 the horrible truth will dawn on him.
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
>
>
> Well, if he treats women the way he treats them here on
> Usenet, it's not likely to happen.
>
> Women don't like being called whores.
>
Or banshees.
The Doctor
John Fleming
desk in the scriptorium doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
Doctor) wrote:
> $Again there is a difference between a woman and a lady.
No there isn't.
John Fleming
desk in the scriptorium doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
Doctor) wrote:
> $In article <1milh5pdo5asa6lhb...@4ax.com>,
> $John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>Women don't like being called whores.
> $
> $Correction Ladies don't like being called whores.
Wrong fucknuts.
If I'd meant to say "ladies", I would have said "ladies".
John Fleming
in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> $> On Dec 3, 9:49 pm, John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:35:01 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
> $>> desk in the scriptorium Loaf of Bread <johnt...@hotmail.com>
> $>> wrote:
> $>>> $On Dec 2, 10:13 am, Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>> $> Andy Leighton wrote:
> $>>> $> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:44:47 +0000 (UTC),
> $>>> $> > The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> $>>> $> >> In article <yZnRm.1087$H23....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> $>>> $> >> john smith <the_johnsm...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> $>>> $> >>> "John Fleming" <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> $>>> $> >>>> There is a lot more to fun sex than just a guy sticking his
> $>>> $> >>>> member up a woman's vagina.
> $>>> $> >>> Try telling *that* to Yads and you'll probably be called "perverted"... ;-)
> $>>> $> >> If it is not for reporductive purposes.
> $>>> $>
> $>>> $> > So if a man or woman is infertile either naturally (or through manual
> $>>> $> > that to people.
> $>>> $>
> $>>> $> It explains why he doesn't have a girlfriend. Who's going to go out with
> $>>> $
> $>>> $I think Yads leads a boring and pointless existence.
> $>>> $
> $>>> $If he had sex once in a while, even just once a year, he'd be a much
> $>> He could do that, and not even violate his religious
> $>> beliefs, if he found a woman who would marry him.
> $>>
> $>
> $>
> $> "IF"..............that's the operative word.
> $>
> $>
> $
> $I think we all know Yads will never find a girlfriend, never mind a
> $wife. Maybe around age 70 the horrible truth will dawn on him.
I think you might be right.
But when he implies in his response to one of my posts that,
somehow, some women like being called whores, it's not
surprising he has trouble finding a girlfriend. Heck, these
days, even prosititutes don't like being called "whores",
preferring a less loaded term like "sex trade worker".
The Doctor
0/10,
A lady wants a man to treat her.
A woman is a human female.
The Doctor
PV
> In article <n51mh5d43eic6r1o0...@4ax.com>,
> John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 22:57:26 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a
>> desk in the scriptorium doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
>> Doctor) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> $Again there is a difference between a woman and a lady.
>>
>> No there isn't.
>>
>> --
>>
>> John Fleming
>> Edmonton, Canada
>>
>> Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
>> And on that farm he had a genome E-I-E-I-O
>> With a SNP SNP here and a SNP SNP there,
>> Here a SNP, there a SNP, everywhere a SNP SNP
>> Old MacDonald had a farm E-I-E-I-O
>
>
> 0/10,
> A lady wants a man to treat her.
>
> A woman is a human female.
WTF?????
What the hell is that supposed to mean????
--
PV
Stupidity is a condition
Ignorance is a choice
John Fleming
the scriptorium "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> wrote:
> $The Doctor wrote:
> $> In article <n51mh5d43eic6r1o0...@4ax.com>,
> $> John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 22:57:26 +0000 (UTC), while chained to a
> $>> desk in the scriptorium doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
> $>> Doctor) wrote:
> $>>
> $>>
> $>>> $Again there is a difference between a woman and a lady.
> $>>
> $>> No there isn't.
> $>
> $> 0/10,
> $> A lady wants a man to treat her.
> $>
> $> A woman is a human female.
> $
> $WTF?????
> $
> $What the hell is that supposed to mean????
The doctor is trying to create a distinction where none
exists.
In modern English, the terms "lady" and "woman" are
virtually interchangable.
There are a few places where the term "lady" would be proper
and "woman" wouldn't. For example, you would say, "Lady
Dianna", not "Woman Dianna", when refering to the late
Princess of Wales. Essentially, here, "Lady" is being used
as a title.
At the same time, you can refer to the female facilities as
either the "Ladies Room" or the "Women's Washroom".
Alan Sailsbury
> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> A lady wants a man to treat her.
No, that's a gold digger.
>>
>> A woman is a human female.
>
> WTF?????
>
> What the hell is that supposed to mean????
>
It's a very Victorian idea that a "lady" is demure and refined. But
she's still a woman of course. Yads just doesn't understand the
terminology properly, like he doesn't understand ANYTHING.
The Doctor
John Fleming
in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $PV wrote:
> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $>>
> $>> A lady wants a man to treat her.
> $
> $No, that's a gold digger.
> $
> $>>
> $>> A woman is a human female.
> $>
> $> WTF?????
> $>
> $> What the hell is that supposed to mean????
> $
> $It's a very Victorian idea that a "lady" is demure and refined. But
> $she's still a woman of course. Yads just doesn't understand the
> $terminology properly, like he doesn't understand ANYTHING.
I've had another thought to this after responding to PV's
post.
Now, as to "a lady wanting a man to treat her," the most
likely way for a doctor to assess that is to offer to buy
her coffee or lunch or something along that line. That
doesn't rule out the possibility the doctor might know a
woman wants/likes to be treated by witnessing something like
her boyfriend or husband buying her lunch. But generally,
chance observations aside, the doctor is not likely to know
much about arrangements between two people vis-a-vis who is
treating whom.
So we go back to first hand assessment. The doctor asks
Bobbie Sue if he can treat her to lunch.
Well, let's look at one scenario. She is an employed
professional and she lives with her boyfriend. Result, she
might not be to thrilled with the doctor's obviously amorous
intentions. So she turns him down.
The doctor now has all the evidence he needs. Clearly,
Bobbie Sue doesn't like to be treated, therefore she is not
a lady. She's just a woman (with calling a member of the
fairer sex now becoming something of a put down).
Alan Sailsbury
Could be. Remember Yads doesn't even consider women to be equal. He sees
them as submissive things to "load up" in a joyless sex session to
produce children. He'll probably deny that now but that's what he said.
And apparently his idea of treating a lady is to grab her and lift her
up, then boast he can carry "150lb women that way".
He might want women to act like ladies but he's no gentleman.
Here's the proof of his delusion:
">You just proved his point. Unless you care to answer the question: How
>does one "carry a lady" and why would they want you to carry them?
Glad you asked. One arm under the hip and the other under the knees.
Hey I use to carry 150 lbs women that way.
Why, ever thought a gentleman could be nice to a lady?
Where are your manners? Wait! You are a troll Alan Sailsbury.
You have no manners."
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/edm.general/msg/0b6b988ef3b20106?hl=en&dmode=source
Sharx35
IMHO, all females are women but NOT all females are ladies. "woman" or
"female" is just a gender; "lady" is a female whose behavior at least "meets
the hurdle".
The Doctor
Sharx35
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:hfgjol$l19$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
I thought Sunday mornings at the Doctor's were reserved for "lying in" and
doing the solitary vice?
The Doctor
Exactly!!
The Doctor
Sharx you crack me you :-)
Alan Sailsbury
>
> I thought Sunday mornings at the Doctor's were reserved for "lying in"
> and doing the solitary vice?
>
>
Apparently it's now "trolling" to quote Yads' own words, ergo his words
must be trolling. ;-)
Alan Sailsbury
John Fleming got it right? The scenario he painted doesn't say much
about you Yads, but if you say he's right, he's right then.
Mr.Smartypants
> The Doctor wrote:
>
> > TRollsbury trolls into it when Fleming gets it right.
>
> John Fleming got it right? The scenario he painted doesn't say much
even Yads has to acknowledge TRUTH once in a while.
John Fleming
the scriptorium "Sharx35" <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> $"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> $news:hfgjol$l19$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> $> In article <xd6dna-4HdSBT4bW...@bt.com>,
> $> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>John Fleming wrote:
> $>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:02:59 +0000, while chained to a desk
> $>>> in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>>> $PV wrote:
> $>>>> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $>>>> $>>
> $>>>> $>> A lady wants a man to treat her.
> $>>>> $
> $>>>> $No, that's a gold digger.
> $>>>> $
> $>>>> $>> A woman is a human female.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> WTF?????
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> What the hell is that supposed to mean????
> $>>>> $
> $>>>> $It's a very Victorian idea that a "lady" is demure and refined. But
> $>>>> $terminology properly, like he doesn't understand ANYTHING.
> $>>>
> $>>> I've had another thought to this after responding to PV's
> $>>> post.
> $>>>
> $>>> Now, as to "a lady wanting a man to treat her," the most
> $>>> likely way for a doctor to assess that is to offer to buy
> $>>> her coffee or lunch or something along that line. That
> $>>> doesn't rule out the possibility the doctor might know a
> $>>> woman wants/likes to be treated by witnessing something like
> $>>> her boyfriend or husband buying her lunch. But generally,
> $>>> chance observations aside, the doctor is not likely to know
> $>>> much about arrangements between two people vis-a-vis who is
> $>>> treating whom.
> $>>>
> $>>> So we go back to first hand assessment. The doctor asks
> $>>> Bobbie Sue if he can treat her to lunch.
> $>>>
> $>>> Well, let's look at one scenario. She is an employed
> $>>> professional and she lives with her boyfriend. Result, she
> $>>> might not be to thrilled with the doctor's obviously amorous
> $>>> intentions. So she turns him down.
> $>>>
> $>>> The doctor now has all the evidence he needs. Clearly,
> $>>> Bobbie Sue doesn't like to be treated, therefore she is not
> $>>> a lady. She's just a woman (with calling a member of the
> $>>> fairer sex now becoming something of a put down).
> $>>>
> $>>
> $>>Could be. Remember Yads doesn't even consider women to be equal. He sees
> $>>them as submissive things to "load up" in a joyless sex session to
> $>>produce children. He'll probably deny that now but that's what he said.
> $>>
> $>>And apparently his idea of treating a lady is to grab her and lift her
> $>>up, then boast he can carry "150lb women that way".
> $>>
> $>>He might want women to act like ladies but he's no gentleman.
> $>>
> $>>Here's the proof of his delusion:
> $>>
> $>>">You just proved his point. Unless you care to answer the question: How
> $>> >does one "carry a lady" and why would they want you to carry them?
> $>>
> $>>Glad you asked. One arm under the hip and the other under the knees.
> $>>
> $>>Hey I use to carry 150 lbs women that way.
> $>>
> $>>Why, ever thought a gentleman could be nice to a lady?
> $>>
> $>>Where are your manners? Wait! You are a troll Alan Sailsbury.
> $>>
> $>>You have no manners."
> $>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/edm.general/msg/0b6b988ef3b20106?hl=en&dmode=source
> $>>
> $>
> $> TRollsbury trolls into it when Fleming gets it right.
> $> --
> $> Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici
> $> doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
> $> God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist
> $> rising!
> $> http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
> $> Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
> $
> $I thought Sunday mornings at the Doctor's were reserved for "lying in" and
> $doing the solitary vice?
If he did that, he'd miss the indoctrination, oops, sermon.
The Doctor
The Doctor
Trolling!! Trolling!! Trolling!! Zarbiface keeps on trolling!!
The Doctor
Mr.Smartypants <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Dec 6, 1:23=A0pm, Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>> > In article <xd6dna-4HdSBT4bWnZ2dnUVZ7qydn...@bt.com>,
>> >>> doesn't rule out the possibility the doctor might know a
>> >>> woman wants/likes to be treated by witnessing something like
>> >>> chance observations aside, the doctor is not likely to know
>> >>> much about arrangements between two people vis-a-vis who is
>> >>> treating whom.
>>
>> >>> Bobbie Sue if he can treat her to lunch.
>>
>> >>> professional and she lives with her boyfriend. =A0Result, she
>> >>> might not be to thrilled with the doctor's obviously amorous
>>
>> >>> The doctor now has all the evidence he needs. =A0Clearly,
>> >>> Bobbie Sue doesn't like to be treated, therefore she is not
>> >>> fairer sex now becoming something of a put down).
>>
>es
>> >> them as submissive things to "load up" in a joyless sex session to
>.
>>
>> >> And apparently his idea of treating a lady is to grab her and lift her
>> >> up, then boast he can carry "150lb women that way".
>>
>> >> He might want women to act like ladies but he's no gentleman.
>>
>> >> Here's the proof of his delusion:
>>
>ow
>> >>> does one "carry a lady" and why would they want you to carry them?
>.
>>
>> >> Hey I use to carry 150 lbs women that way.
>>
>> >> Why, ever thought a gentleman could be nice to a lady?
>>
>>
>> >> You have no manners."
>> >>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/edm.general/msg/0b6b988ef3b20106?hl=3D=
>...
>>
>> > TRollsbury trolls into it when Fleming gets it right.
>>
>> John Fleming got it right? The scenario he painted doesn't say much
>> about you Yads, but if you say he's right, he's right then.-
>
>
>even Yads has to acknowledge TRUTH once in a while.
>
Said chronin liar Ron Hamilton.
The Doctor
Whatever you 2. BTW care to meet up on 112 st and 102 ave 6 Dec 2009 6:30 p.m.
And in the Obituary section:
http://www.legacy.com/gb2/faq.aspx?bookid=5875651999778
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Alan Sailsbury
I'll take that mad outburst as an indication that you're now regretting
admitting John was right about you.
The Doctor
John Fleming
in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> In article <xd6dna-4HdSBT4bW...@bt.com>,
> $> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>> John Fleming wrote:
> $>>> in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>>> $PV wrote:
> $>>>> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $>>>> $>>
> $>>>> $>> A lady wants a man to treat her.
> $>>>> $
> $>>>> $No, that's a gold digger.
> $>>>> $
> $>>>> $>> A woman is a human female.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> WTF?????
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> What the hell is that supposed to mean????
> $>>>> $
> $>>>> $It's a very Victorian idea that a "lady" is demure and refined. But
> $>>>> $terminology properly, like he doesn't understand ANYTHING.
> $>>> I've had another thought to this after responding to PV's
> $>>> post.
> $>>>
> $>>> Now, as to "a lady wanting a man to treat her," the most
> $>>> likely way for a doctor to assess that is to offer to buy
> $>>> her coffee or lunch or something along that line. That
> $>>> doesn't rule out the possibility the doctor might know a
> $>>> woman wants/likes to be treated by witnessing something like
> $>>> her boyfriend or husband buying her lunch. But generally,
> $>>> chance observations aside, the doctor is not likely to know
> $>>> much about arrangements between two people vis-a-vis who is
> $>>> treating whom.
> $>>>
> $>>> Bobbie Sue if he can treat her to lunch.
> $>>>
> $>>> Well, let's look at one scenario. She is an employed
> $>>> professional and she lives with her boyfriend. Result, she
> $>>> might not be to thrilled with the doctor's obviously amorous
> $>>> intentions. So she turns him down.
> $>>>
> $>>> The doctor now has all the evidence he needs. Clearly,
> $>>> Bobbie Sue doesn't like to be treated, therefore she is not
> $>>> a lady. She's just a woman (with calling a member of the
> $>>> fairer sex now becoming something of a put down).
> $>>>
> $>> Could be. Remember Yads doesn't even consider women to be equal. He sees
> $>> them as submissive things to "load up" in a joyless sex session to
> $>> produce children. He'll probably deny that now but that's what he said.
> $>>
> $>> And apparently his idea of treating a lady is to grab her and lift her
> $>> up, then boast he can carry "150lb women that way".
> $>>
> $>> He might want women to act like ladies but he's no gentleman.
> $>>
> $>> Here's the proof of his delusion:
> $>>
> $>> ">You just proved his point. Unless you care to answer the question: How
> $>>> does one "carry a lady" and why would they want you to carry them?
> $>> Glad you asked. One arm under the hip and the other under the knees.
> $>>
> $>> Hey I use to carry 150 lbs women that way.
> $>>
> $>> Why, ever thought a gentleman could be nice to a lady?
> $>>
> $>> Where are your manners? Wait! You are a troll Alan Sailsbury.
> $>>
> $>> You have no manners."
> $>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/edm.general/msg/0b6b988ef3b20106?hl=en&dmode=source
> $>>
> $>
> $
> $John Fleming got it right? The scenario he painted doesn't say much
> $about you Yads, but if you say he's right, he's right then.
He might make less of a fool of himself if he read what he
was responding to first.
The Doctor
John Fleming
desk in the scriptorium "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
> $On Dec 6, 1:23嚙緘m, Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $> > Alan Sailsbury 嚙�al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> >> John Fleming wrote:
> $> >>> in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> >>>> $PV wrote:
> $> >>>> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $> >>>> $>>
> $> >>>> $>> A lady wants a man to treat her.
> $> >>>> $
> $> >>>> $No, that's a gold digger.
> $> >>>> $
> $> >>>> $>> A woman is a human female.
> $> >>>> $>
> $> >>>> $> WTF?????
> $> >>>> $>
> $> >>>> $> What the hell is that supposed to mean????
> $> >>>> $
> $> >>>> $It's a very Victorian idea that a "lady" is demure and refined. But
> $> >>>> $terminology properly, like he doesn't understand ANYTHING.
> $> >>> I've had another thought to this after responding to PV's
> $> >>> post.
> $>
> $> >>> Now, as to "a lady wanting a man to treat her," the most
> $> >>> likely way for a doctor to assess that is to offer to buy
> $> >>> her coffee or lunch or something along that line. 嚙確hat
> $> >>> doesn't rule out the possibility the doctor might know a
> $> >>> woman wants/likes to be treated by witnessing something like
> $> >>> her boyfriend or husband buying her lunch. 嚙畿ut generally,
> $> >>> chance observations aside, the doctor is not likely to know
> $> >>> much about arrangements between two people vis-a-vis who is
> $> >>> treating whom.
> $>
> $> >>> Bobbie Sue if he can treat her to lunch.
> $>
> $> >>> Well, let's look at one scenario. 嚙磅he is an employed
> $> >>> professional and she lives with her boyfriend. 嚙磋esult, she
> $> >>> might not be to thrilled with the doctor's obviously amorous
> $> >>> intentions. 嚙磅o she turns him down.
> $>
> $> >>> The doctor now has all the evidence he needs. åš™ç˜ learly,
> $> >>> Bobbie Sue doesn't like to be treated, therefore she is not
> $> >>> a lady. 嚙磅he's just a woman (with calling a member of the
> $> >>> fairer sex now becoming something of a put down).
> $>
> $> >> Could be. Remember Yads doesn't even consider women to be equal. He sees
> $> >> them as submissive things to "load up" in a joyless sex session to
> $> >> produce children. He'll probably deny that now but that's what he said.
> $>
> $> >> And apparently his idea of treating a lady is to grab her and lift her
> $> >> up, then boast he can carry "150lb women that way".
> $>
> $> >> He might want women to act like ladies but he's no gentleman.
> $>
> $> >> Here's the proof of his delusion:
> $>
> $> >> ">You just proved his point. Unless you care to answer the question: How
> $> >>> does one "carry a lady" and why would they want you to carry them?
> $> >> Glad you asked. 嚙瞌ne arm under the hip and the other under the knees.
> $>
> $> >> Hey I use to carry 150 lbs women that way.
> $>
> $> >> Why, ever thought a gentleman could be nice to a lady?
> $>
> $>
> $> >> You have no manners."
> $>
> $> > TRollsbury trolls into it when Fleming gets it right.
> $>
> $> John Fleming got it right? The scenario he painted doesn't say much
> $> about you Yads, but if you say he's right, he's right then.-
> $
> $even Yads has to acknowledge TRUTH once in a while.
Some of the time.
Now, in another thread he's convince that sex while wearing
a condom isn't sex. Clearly a figment of an overactive
imagination.
Alan Sailsbury
>
> TRolsbury is sociipathic liar the way he posts.
"Fleming gets it right" - Dave Yadallee
The Doctor
The Doctor
Poor Fleming is not certain. He is good Hong Kong Edinburghan.
PV
> In article <cmroh5hqa4ijrbt4i...@4ax.com>,
> John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:30:12 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
>> desk in the scriptorium "Mr.Smartypants"
>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> $> The Doctor wrote:
>>> $> > In article <xd6dna-4HdSBT4bWnZ2dnUVZ7qydn...@bt.com>,
>>> $> >>> doesn't rule out the possibility the doctor might know a
>>> $> >>> woman wants/likes to be treated by witnessing something like
>>> $> >>> chance observations aside, the doctor is not likely to know
>>> $> >>> much about arrangements between two people vis-a-vis who is
>>> $> >>> treating whom.
>>> $>
>>> $> >>> Bobbie Sue if he can treat her to lunch.
>>> $>
>>> $> >>> professional and she lives with her boyfriend. Result, she
>>> $> >>> might not be to thrilled with the doctor's obviously amorous
>>> $>
>>> $> >>> The doctor now has all the evidence he needs. Clearly,
>>> $> >>> Bobbie Sue doesn't like to be treated, therefore she is not
>>> $> >>> fairer sex now becoming something of a put down).
>>> $>
>>> $> >> Could be. Remember Yads doesn't even consider women to be
>>> equal. He sees $> >> them as submissive things to "load up" in a
>>> joyless sex session to $> >> produce children. He'll probably deny
>>> that now but that's what he said. $>
>>> $> >> And apparently his idea of treating a lady is to grab her and
>>> lift her $> >> up, then boast he can carry "150lb women that way".
>>> $>
>>> $> >> He might want women to act like ladies but he's no gentleman.
>>> $>
>>> $> >> Here's the proof of his delusion:
>>> $>
>>> $> >> ">You just proved his point. Unless you care to answer the
>>> question: How $> >>> does one "carry a lady" and why would they
>>> and the other under the knees. $>
>>> $> >> Hey I use to carry 150 lbs women that way.
>>> $>
>>> $> >> Why, ever thought a gentleman could be nice to a lady?
>>> $>
>>> $>
>>> $> >> You have no manners."
>>> $>
>>> >>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/edm.general/msg/0b6b988ef3b20106?hl=...
>>> $> $> > TRollsbury trolls into it when Fleming gets it right.
>>> $>
>>> $> John Fleming got it right? The scenario he painted doesn't say
>>> much $> about you Yads, but if you say he's right, he's right then.-
>>> $
>>> $even Yads has to acknowledge TRUTH once in a while.
>>
>> Some of the time.
>>
>> Now, in another thread he's convince that sex while wearing
>> a condom isn't sex. Clearly a figment of an overactive
>> imagination.
>>
>
> 0/10 JFl . Condom users has NO honour and NO ethics.
What colour is the sky in your world?
Sheesh I swear you are succoming to some brain degenerative disease or maybe
it's just terminal stupidity.
Stick to things you actually know.
--
PV
Stupidity is a condition
Ignorance is a choice
Alan Sailsbury
In Yadsworld sex with a condom = sex for fun. Sex for fun = sin.
Yadsworld is a poor place to be.
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
"unethical" or "dishonorable"?
The Doctor
Yes. You should desire children before engaging in sexual activity.
Unwanted children is unethical.
Alan Sailsbury
> In article <I4idnSaT_MDmqIDW...@bt.com>,
>
>>>>
>>> Condom users has NO honour and NO ethics.
>>
>> Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
>> couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
>> love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
>> condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
>> "unethical" or "dishonorable"?
>>
>
> Yes. You should desire children before engaging in sexual activity.
> Unwanted children is unethical.
Ok. A few more questions if you'd be kind enough to answer please:
I agree with you that unwanted children is unethical. However, condoms
PREVENT this so how can condoms be unethical?
Do you believe that married couples should not have sex if they don't
want more children?
What about the pill or other methods of contraception? Are they
unethical too?
Alan Sailsbury
So if you were married you stop having sex as soon as you and your wife
had the number of children you wanted?
Stephen Wilson
"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
news:PMGdndMjtKnc3YDW...@bt.com...
It's quite simple. As far as Yads is concerned, sex is a strictly biological
function. The only purpose of sex is to create babies. And the only people
who can create babies are a man and woman who are married to each other.
It's not an action that 2 people who love each other do, and it's certainly
not done for fun.
Which is fine. He's harming no-one else by holding such a belief. Leave him
to it!
The Doctor
The only legitimate contraception method is not intercourse.
The Doctor
The Doctor
HOw does SW prevents STDs?
Alan Sailsbury
>>>>
>>> Yes. You should desire children before engaging in sexual activity.
>>
>> So if you were married you stop having sex as soon as you and your wife
>> had the number of children you wanted?
>>
>
> Yes.
What if a married couple ENJOYED having sex with each other? How could
that possibly be wrong?
Alan Sailsbury
> In article <m_ednd64p8bzp4DW...@bt.com>,
> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>> In article <I4idnSaT_MDmqIDW...@bt.com>,
>>>
>>>>> Condom users has NO honour and NO ethics.
>>>> Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
>>>> couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
>>>> love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
>>>> condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
>>>> "unethical" or "dishonorable"?
>>>>
>>> Yes. You should desire children before engaging in sexual activity.
>>> Unwanted children is unethical.
>> Ok. A few more questions if you'd be kind enough to answer please:
>>
>> I agree with you that unwanted children is unethical. However, condoms
>> PREVENT this so how can condoms be unethical?
>>
>> Do you believe that married couples should not have sex if they don't
>> want more children?
>>
>> What about the pill or other methods of contraception? Are they
>> unethical too?
>
> The only legitimate contraception method is not intercourse.
What about when you masturbate? All those dying sperm, wasted? Aren't
you being a sinner then?
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
Well if it's any consolation don't beat yourself up about it. However it
does raise another question: you masturbate because you enjoy it, so if
you were married what makes you think you could abstain from sex with
your wife? That'd be more enjoyable than wanking I can assure you!
Come on Yads. There are enough REAL horrors in the world without adding
"making love" to the list.
Sex between loving partners is good, not bad. I'm not talking about
promiscuity. I mean between proper loving couples. It's a good thing.
Think about it.
The Doctor
Key concept proper loving couples - hance why I am anti-abortion.
Alan Sailsbury
Ok but that's a completely separate issue. My point is there's nothing
wrong with a loving couple having sex for enjoyment. And those condoms
you hate so much would stop unwanted pregnancies so there'd be less
abortions wouldn't there?
John Fleming
in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $>> John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> $>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 12:30:12 -0800 (PST), while chained to a
> $>>> desk in the scriptorium "Mr.Smartypants"
> $>>> <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
> $>>>> $On Dec 6, 1:23 pm, Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>>> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $>>>> $> > Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>>> $> >> John Fleming wrote:
> $>>>> $> >>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:02:59 +0000, while chained to a desk
> $>>>> $> >>> in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>>> $> >>>> $PV wrote:
> $>>>> $> >>>> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $>>>> $> >>>> $>>
> $>>>> $> >>>> $>> A lady wants a man to treat her.
> $>>>> $> >>>> $
> $>>>> $> >>>> $No, that's a gold digger.
> $>>>> $> >>>> $
> $>>>> $> >>>> $>>
> $>>>> $> >>>> $>> A woman is a human female.
> $>>>> $> >>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >>>> $> WTF?????
> $>>>> $> >>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >>>> $> What the hell is that supposed to mean????
> $>>>> $> >>>> $
> $>>>> $> >>>> $It's a very Victorian idea that a "lady" is demure and
> $>>>> doesn't understand the $> >>>> $terminology properly, like he
> $>>>> doesn't understand ANYTHING. $> >>> I've had another thought to
> $>>>> this after responding to PV's $> >>> post.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >>> Now, as to "a lady wanting a man to treat her," the most
> $>>>> $> >>> her coffee or lunch or something along that line. That
> $>>>> $> >>> doesn't rule out the possibility the doctor might know a
> $>>>> $> >>> woman wants/likes to be treated by witnessing something like
> $>>>> $> >>> her boyfriend or husband buying her lunch. But generally,
> $>>>> $> >>> chance observations aside, the doctor is not likely to know
> $>>>> $> >>> much about arrangements between two people vis-a-vis who is
> $>>>> $> >>> treating whom.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >>> So we go back to first hand assessment. The doctor asks
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >>> Well, let's look at one scenario. She is an employed
> $>>>> $> >>> might not be to thrilled with the doctor's obviously amorous
> $>>>> $> >>> intentions. So she turns him down.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >>> The doctor now has all the evidence he needs. Clearly,
> $>>>> $> >>> a lady. She's just a woman (with calling a member of the
> $>>>> $> >>> fairer sex now becoming something of a put down).
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >> Could be. Remember Yads doesn't even consider women to be
> $>>>> joyless sex session to $> >> produce children. He'll probably deny
> $>>>> that now but that's what he said. $>
> $>>>> $> >> And apparently his idea of treating a lady is to grab her and
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >> He might want women to act like ladies but he's no gentleman.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >> Here's the proof of his delusion:
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >> ">You just proved his point. Unless you care to answer the
> $>>>> want you to carry them? $> >> Glad you asked. One arm under the hip
> $>>>> and the other under the knees. $>
> $>>>> $> >> Hey I use to carry 150 lbs women that way.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >> Why, ever thought a gentleman could be nice to a lady?
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >> Where are your manners? Wait! You are a troll Alan Sailsbury.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> >> You have no manners."
> $>>>>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/edm.general/msg/0b6b988ef3b20106?hl=...
> $>>>> $> $> > TRollsbury trolls into it when Fleming gets it right.
> $>>>> $>
> $>>>> $> John Fleming got it right? The scenario he painted doesn't say
> $>>>> $
> $>>>> $even Yads has to acknowledge TRUTH once in a while.
> $>>>
> $>>> Now, in another thread he's convince that sex while wearing
> $>>> a condom isn't sex. Clearly a figment of an overactive
> $>>> imagination.
> $>>>
> $>> 0/10 JFl . Condom users has NO honour and NO ethics.
> $>
> $> What colour is the sky in your world?
> $>
> $> Sheesh I swear you are succoming to some brain degenerative disease or maybe
> $> it's just terminal stupidity.
> $>
> $> Stick to things you actually know.
> $
> $In Yadsworld sex with a condom = sex for fun. Sex for fun = sin.
That makes sense. A condom prevents sex being used for its
intended reproductive purposes.
With an attitude like that, he'd make a great Roman
Catholic. (Of course, the time spent in confessional and
saying "Hail Mary" five hundred thousand times to atone for
his sins would seriously cut into the time available for
posting to Usenet.)
> $Yadsworld is a poor place to be.
Agreed.
For one thing, the rythym method isn't the greatest form of
birth control.
John Fleming
in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> Condom users has NO honour and NO ethics.
> $
> $Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
> $couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
> $love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
> $condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
> $"unethical" or "dishonorable"?
I think we both know the answer to that one.
Anyway, this whole part of the discussion started off with
some claim by the doctor that sex with a condom was,
somehow, not sex.
John Fleming
desk in the scriptorium doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The
Doctor) wrote:
> $In article <I4idnSaT_MDmqIDW...@bt.com>,
> $Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>The Doctor wrote:
[usual crap]
> $>Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
> $>couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
> $>love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
> $>condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
> $>"unethical" or "dishonorable"?
> $>
> $
> $Yes. You should desire children before engaging in sexual activity.
> $Unwanted children is unethical.
So taking steps to prevent unwanted children during sex
should be the ethical choice, no?
John Fleming
> $Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>The Doctor wrote:
> $>>
> $>>>>>
> $>>>> Condom users has NO honour and NO ethics.
> $>>>
> $>>> Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
> $>>> couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
> $>>> love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
> $>>> condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
> $>>> "unethical" or "dishonorable"?
> $>>>
> $>>
> $>> Unwanted children is unethical.
> $>
> $>Ok. A few more questions if you'd be kind enough to answer please:
> $>
> $>I agree with you that unwanted children is unethical. However, condoms
> $>PREVENT this so how can condoms be unethical?
> $>
> $>Do you believe that married couples should not have sex if they don't
> $>want more children?
> $>
> $>What about the pill or other methods of contraception? Are they
> $>unethical too?
> $
> $The only legitimate contraception method is not intercourse.
If the Roman Catholics of the world all believed that, the
Pope would be very, very happy.
John Fleming
> $Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>The Doctor wrote:
> $>> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>> The Doctor wrote:
> $>>>> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>>>> The Doctor wrote:
> $>>>>>> In article <I4idnSaT_MDmqIDW...@bt.com>,
> $>>>>>>
> $>>>>>>> Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
> $>>>>>>> couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
> $>>>>>>> love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
> $>>>>>>> condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
> $>>>>>>> "unethical" or "dishonorable"?
> $>>>>>>>
> $>>>>>> Yes. You should desire children before engaging in sexual activity.
> $>>>>>> Unwanted children is unethical.
> $>>>>> Ok. A few more questions if you'd be kind enough to answer please:
> $>>>>>
> $>>>>> I agree with you that unwanted children is unethical. However, condoms
> $>>>>> PREVENT this so how can condoms be unethical?
> $>>>>>
> $>>>>> Do you believe that married couples should not have sex if they don't
> $>>>>> want more children?
> $>>>>>
> $>>>>> unethical too?
> $>>>> The only legitimate contraception method is not intercourse.
> $>>> What about when you masturbate? All those dying sperm, wasted? Aren't
> $>>> you being a sinner then?
> $>>>
> $>>
> $>> Confession: I agree.
> $>
> $>Well if it's any consolation don't beat yourself up about it. However it
> $>does raise another question: you masturbate because you enjoy it, so if
> $>you were married what makes you think you could abstain from sex with
> $>your wife? That'd be more enjoyable than wanking I can assure you!
> $>
> $>Come on Yads. There are enough REAL horrors in the world without adding
> $>"making love" to the list.
> $>
> $>Sex between loving partners is good, not bad. I'm not talking about
> $>promiscuity. I mean between proper loving couples. It's a good thing.
> $>
> $>Think about it.
> $>
> $>
> $
> $Key concept proper loving couples - hance why I am anti-abortion.
Women who have abortions have an unwanted pregnancy, no?
Hence, sex with the use of condom, which helps prevent
unwanted pregnancies should be a good thing, no?
John Fleming
in the scriptorium "Stephen Wilson"
<stephen.wils...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> $"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message
> $news:PMGdndMjtKnc3YDW...@bt.com...
> $> The Doctor wrote:
> $>> In article <I4idnSaT_MDmqIDW...@bt.com>,
> $>> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $>>> The Doctor wrote:
> $>
> $>>>
> $>>> Ok, that's your belief. Let me ask you this then. Imagine a married
> $>>> couple have two children. They don't want any more kids. However, they
> $>>> love each other and part of that love is *making* love. The man wears a
> $>>> condom so they won't have unwanted pregnancies. Do you consider that
> $>>> "unethical" or "dishonorable"?
> $>>>
> $>>
> $>
> $>
> $> So if you were married you stop having sex as soon as you and your wife
> $> had the number of children you wanted?
> $
> $It's quite simple. As far as Yads is concerned, sex is a strictly biological
> $function. The only purpose of sex is to create babies. And the only people
> $who can create babies are a man and woman who are married to each other.
> $It's not an action that 2 people who love each other do, and it's certainly
> $not done for fun.
> $
> $Which is fine. He's harming no-one else by holding such a belief. Leave him
> $to it!
The problem is, I think he's like to force it onto everyone
else.
Alan Sailsbury
True but perhaps that could be his new obsession, - saying more "Hail
Marys" than any other Catholic? Yads and his "Hail Mary" count. Top
confessor! :-)
John Fleming
in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:17:15 +0000, while chained to a desk
> $> in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
> $
> $>> $In Yadsworld sex with a condom = sex for fun. Sex for fun = sin.
> $> That makes sense. A condom prevents sex being used for its
> $> intended reproductive purposes.
> $>
> $> With an attitude like that, he'd make a great Roman
> $> Catholic. (Of course, the time spent in confessional and
> $> saying "Hail Mary" five hundred thousand times to atone for
> $> his sins would seriously cut into the time available for
> $> posting to Usenet.)
> $
> $True but perhaps that could be his new obsession, - saying more "Hail
> $Marys" than any other Catholic? Yads and his "Hail Mary" count. Top
> $confessor! :-)
That would be a good one actually.
It would also keep him out of everyone else's hair.
Diane L.
<snip>
> It's quite simple. As far as Yads is concerned, sex is a strictly
> biological function. The only purpose of sex is to create babies. And
> the only people who can create babies are a man and woman who are
> married to each other. It's not an action that 2 people who love each
> other do, and it's certainly not done for fun.
>
> Which is fine. He's harming no-one else by holding such a belief.
> Leave him to it!
Actually, such beliefs can and do harm others. The Roman Catholic
Church, along with some American evangelicals, are actively opposing
condom use in Africa. Congressional funding for Aids awareness
campaigns has been linked to 'Abstinance' programmes (where
HIV+ people are taught that the only way to stop the spread of
Aids is for them to never have sex). Some of the people holding
these views go so far as to tell lies about the effectiveness of condoms
in reducing HIV infections.
It maybe that Yads doesn't know or care about any of this but it's
no exaggeration to say that that beliefs like his are killing people.
Diane L.
Alan Sailsbury
>
>
> Actually, such beliefs can and do harm others. The Roman Catholic
> Church, along with some American evangelicals, are actively opposing
> condom use in Africa. Congressional funding for Aids awareness campaigns
> has been linked to 'Abstinance' programmes (where
> HIV+ people are taught that the only way to stop the spread of
> Aids is for them to never have sex). Some of the people holding
> these views go so far as to tell lies about the effectiveness of condoms
> in reducing HIV infections.
>
> It maybe that Yads doesn't know or care about any of this but it's
> no exaggeration to say that that beliefs like his are killing people.
>
> Diane L.
There we have it then. Yads is an Evangelical Christian so he's been
told condoms are wrong.
Sick, aren't they?
The Doctor
Afraid not: Sex and abortion still falls under morals and ethics.
The Doctor
Roman Catholic? I do not believe that MAry is Divine!
Only the Holy Trinity!!
The Doctor
The Doctor
The Doctor
The Doctor
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
There is nothing immoral about having protected sex with someone you love.
The Doctor
The Doctor
John Fleming <nos...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:00:48 +0000, while chained to a desk
>in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>> $John Fleming wrote:
>> $> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:17:15 +0000, while chained to a desk
>> $> in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>> $
>> $>> $
>> $>> $In Yadsworld sex with a condom = sex for fun. Sex for fun = sin.
>> $>
>> $> That makes sense. A condom prevents sex being used for its
>> $> intended reproductive purposes.
>> $>
>> $> With an attitude like that, he'd make a great Roman
>> $> Catholic. (Of course, the time spent in confessional and
>> $> saying "Hail Mary" five hundred thousand times to atone for
>> $> his sins would seriously cut into the time available for
>> $> posting to Usenet.)
>> $
>> $True but perhaps that could be his new obsession, - saying more "Hail
>> $Marys" than any other Catholic? Yads and his "Hail Mary" count. Top
>> $confessor! :-)
>
>That would be a good one actually.
>
>It would also keep him out of everyone else's hair.
>
0/10 .
Alan Sailsbury
>
> Long live Evangelical PRotestants.
Surely you don't need to say that, as that's what you believe will
happen anyway. You actually think you and your fellow Evangies are going
to live forever don't you?
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
>
> Absenance is more effective.
NOT AS MUCH FUN THOUGH IS IT?
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
> In article <RLudncVMuMKBLoDW...@bt.com>,
> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>> John Fleming wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:17:15 +0000, while chained to a desk
>>> in the scriptorium Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>>>> $
>>>> $In Yadsworld sex with a condom = sex for fun. Sex for fun = sin.
>>> That makes sense. A condom prevents sex being used for its
>>> intended reproductive purposes.
>>>
>>> With an attitude like that, he'd make a great Roman
>>> Catholic. (Of course, the time spent in confessional and
>>> saying "Hail Mary" five hundred thousand times to atone for
>>> his sins would seriously cut into the time available for
>>> posting to Usenet.)
>> True but perhaps that could be his new obsession, - saying more "Hail
>> Marys" than any other Catholic? Yads and his "Hail Mary" count. Top
>> confessor! :-)
>>
>>
>
> AS I said Mary is not divine, the Holy Trinity is.
It's ALL bollocks.
Alan Sailsbury
> In article <7o6ejsF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Diane L. <dian...@lindquist.plus.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> It's quite simple. As far as Yads is concerned, sex is a strictly
>>> biological function. The only purpose of sex is to create babies. And
>>> the only people who can create babies are a man and woman who are
>>> married to each other. It's not an action that 2 people who love each
>>> other do, and it's certainly not done for fun.
>>>
>>> Which is fine. He's harming no-one else by holding such a belief.
>>> Leave him to it!
>> Actually, such beliefs can and do harm others. The Roman Catholic
>> Church, along with some American evangelicals, are actively opposing
>> condom use in Africa. Congressional funding for Aids awareness
>> campaigns has been linked to 'Abstinance' programmes (where
>> HIV+ people are taught that the only way to stop the spread of
>> Aids is for them to never have sex). Some of the people holding
>> these views go so far as to tell lies about the effectiveness of condoms
>> in reducing HIV infections.
>>
>> It maybe that Yads doesn't know or care about any of this but it's
>> no exaggeration to say that that beliefs like his are killing people.
>>
>> Diane L.
>
> Diane gets it wrong again.
In what way?
The Doctor
So then why do Catholics declare unofficial was on Protestants?
Alan Sailsbury
It'll also turn you into a bitter and frustrated old man. Whoops too
late in your case.
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
> In article <ec-dnUJ3dL2S8IPW...@bt.com>,
> Alan Sailsbury <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>> Long live Evangelical PRotestants.
>> Surely you don't need to say that, as that's what you believe will
>> happen anyway. You actually think you and your fellow Evangies are going
>> to live forever don't you?
>>
>>
>
> So then why do Catholics declare unofficial was on Protestants?
WTF?
The Doctor
The Doctor
Alan Sailsbury
What he hell is accidental sex? Do you mean accidental pregnancies?
Alan Sailsbury
What?
pandora
"Alan Sailsbury" <al...@yahoo.comm> wrote in message