Re: Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in his teachings when he is

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <osr7p7ldnobvhrkib...@4ax.com>, duke
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:00:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>>In article <a465p7llnqb8bglg7...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:53:58 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <dpg2p7ppn595eno5v...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:28:53 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>snip
>>
>>>>• If he helped one there must have been others he helped. A better
>>>>choice for pope would have been a Cardinal who had not cut a buttrammer
>>>>priest some slack.
>>>
>>>Still waiting on info on that one (1) he abetted.
>>>
>>• It was discussed here. Were you napping?
>
>Nope, still waiting.
>
• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
you were napping again?

--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

[Alan Ferris]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:40:36 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
wrote:

>>>>>• If he helped one there must have been others he helped. A better
>>>>>choice for pope would have been a Cardinal who had not cut a buttrammer
>>>>>priest some slack.
>>>>
>>>>Still waiting on info on that one (1) he abetted.
>>>>
>>>• It was discussed here. Were you napping?
>>
>>Nope, still waiting.
>>
>• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
>you were napping again?

Like any good catholic he ignores anything which goes against that
which he believes.

-----------
"Earl:No Catholic has told me I'm wrong.

Bullshit, Earl and you know it. At the very least Scoutlady and I
have both said that you're scum, and those are only the people I can
think of off the top of my head."
- Catholic view of duke (Earl J Weber)
-------------

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <bknap7hd0p7ik2um2...@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris

<hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:40:36 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
>wrote:
>
>>>>>>• If he helped one there must have been others he helped. A better
>>>>>>choice for pope would have been a Cardinal who had not cut a buttrammer
>>>>>>priest some slack.
>>>>>
>>>>>Still waiting on info on that one (1) he abetted.
>>>>>
>>>>• It was discussed here. Were you napping?
>>>
>>>Nope, still waiting.
>>>
>>• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
>>you were napping again?
>
>Like any good catholic he ignores anything which goes against that
>which he believes.

• It is like their brains go into sleep mode when the awful truth appears.

[duke]

Stinky? He's as useless as tit's on a bull in a discussion.

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****

[duke]

Oh, now I understand. Neither one of you has the slightest memory of being
corrected on what you said many times before, and still you push the issues.

[Alan Ferris]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:49:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
>>you were napping again?
>
>Stinky? He's as useless as tit's on a bull in a discussion.

Shall we see how a you act to priests:


"Dear Fr. Cridland:
As I told you these last few posts, which I made in reply to your
comments to me, your problem is with Alan Ferris, and not myself.

He may be the finest, professed atheist in your congregation.
However, to others such as myself, he does his best to present
himself as one of the most distasteful and unlikeable people on
the internet. For your sake, I hope that you are right in your
assessment of him. To me, I would classify him as an intentional
fraud and liar that, to the ordinary citizen, would never consider
entrusting to him any personal or private information.

One item does bother me about your comments, however. Just
recently I observed your Alan Ferris, or someone of his name,
posting on how he was in trouble with one of his parish support
orginizations, something having to do with possibly some
questionable activity on his part. The last I observed, he
professed that he would, and apparently did, resign rather than
answer to the charges against him. That you and your staff find
him a likeable individual is somewhat contrary to the manner to
which he presents himself to others.

Your Alan Ferris is certainly making a name of himself on the
internet at this time. He's throwing law suit threats all over
with others, revealing names of people who don't want to be
mentioned, and no telling what other shenanigans.

As before, I wish you the best of luck in resolving your troubles
with Alan Ferris. That your church staff should become frightened
of him is understandable.

duke"

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <go4dp79rc8hsh8o1j...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:40:36 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>>In article <osr7p7ldnobvhrkib...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:00:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <a465p7llnqb8bglg7...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:53:58 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <dpg2p7ppn595eno5v...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:28:53 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L.
Measures.) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>>>• If he helped one there must have been others he helped. A better
>>>>>>choice for pope would have been a Cardinal who had not cut a buttrammer
>>>>>>priest some slack.
>>>>>
>>>>>Still waiting on info on that one (1) he abetted.
>>>>>
>>>>• It was discussed here. Were you napping?
>>>
>>>Nope, still waiting.
>>>
>>• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
>>you were napping again?
>
>Stinky? He's as useless as tit's on a bull in a discussion.
>

• As he often does, Alan provided the embarrassing references and you
missed them because you are so pissed at him you can not see straight.

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <er4dp7p75nu8hbn9r...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:20:06 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>>In article <bknap7hd0p7ik2um2...@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris
>><hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:40:36 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>• If he helped one there must have been others he helped. A better
>>>>>>>>choice for pope would have been a Cardinal who had not cut a buttrammer
>>>>>>>>priest some slack.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Still waiting on info on that one (1) he abetted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>• It was discussed here. Were you napping?
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, still waiting.
>>>>>
>>>>• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
>>>>you were napping again?
>>>
>>>Like any good catholic he ignores anything which goes against that
>>>which he believes.
>>
>>• It is like their brains go into sleep mode when the awful truth appears.
>
>Oh, now I understand. Neither one of you has the slightest memory of being
>corrected on what you said many times before, and still you push the issues.
>

• What still exists gets pushed.

[duke]

But you were corrected.

[duke]

As he often does, he makes up a lot of stuff.

[Alan Ferris]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:26:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
>>>>you were napping again?
>>>
>>>Stinky? He's as useless as tit's on a bull in a discussion.
>>>
>>• As he often does, Alan provided the embarrassing references and you
>>missed them because you are so pissed at him you can not see straight.
>
>As he often does, he makes up a lot of stuff.

ROFLMAO! Next he will claim I made up all the catholic websites much
of the information came from. His pall Barker did this once when
defending puke, Barker claimed I made up a parish website just to fool
him.

From: "Pat Barker" <bark...@erinet.com>
-----------------
+ So... you made up a website about a church and priest.
http://www.rcchurch.org.uk/sydenham.htm
----------------r

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <3brfp7tu7g0hg6lmc...@4ax.com>, duke

• Did he make up the quote about nipple pinching?

[duke]

As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a double
standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.

stinky has no socially redeeming value in his postings, and I just ignore him.
To date, I rate his performance at 100% falsification in the manner and way he
presents something. But he has no moral code, so I just let him go.

[Alan Ferris]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:20:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>>• Did he make up the quote about nipple pinching?
>
>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a double
>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.

"Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their
young daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female
parents "touch" their young son's genitals in just the
wrong way - only now to have to stand accused of a charge
of sexual molestation of children." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"only a fool fails to understand that a lot of fathers
teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
their sons. It's called child molestation outside the
family unit." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"I was talking about a loving family teasingly pinching
nipples (pre breast type) and comparing how that's quite
alright in a family setting but clearly and quickly labeled
as child molestation outside the family setting."
- duke (Earl J Weber)

>stinky has no socially redeeming value in his postings, and I just ignore him.
>To date, I rate his performance at 100% falsification in the manner and way he
>presents something. But he has no moral code, so I just let him go.

All the above are exactly as posted by you. Must suck to realise that
your own words are condemning you.

"I can take you two gobblers"
- duke (Earl Weber)
touting for sex online

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <j8qgp7dogpolekhfe...@4ax.com>, duke

• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.

>
>stinky has no socially redeeming value in his postings, and I just ignore him.
>To date, I rate his performance at 100% falsification in the manner and way he
>presents something. But he has no moral code, so I just let him go.
>
>duke, American - American

[Alan Ferris]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:54:09 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
wrote:

>>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a double
>>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
>>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.
>
>• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.

That is what everybody tries to tell him is wrong and it is the part
he never grasps. He thinks abuse is ok as long as it is in the
"family". I feel really sorry for his nieces having to put up with
that kind of abuse.

"Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their
young daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female
parents "touch" their young son's genitals in just the
wrong way - only now to have to stand accused of a charge
of sexual molestation of children." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"only a fool fails to understand that a lot of fathers
teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
their sons. It's called child molestation outside the
family unit." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"I was talking about a loving family teasingly pinching
nipples (pre breast type) and comparing how that's quite
alright in a family setting but clearly and quickly labeled
as child molestation outside the family setting."
- duke (Earl J Weber)

"As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion
addressing a double standard - what is considered "ok" in
the family setting quickly becomes molestation by an outsider.

You can see that in the comment itself." - duke (Earl J Weber)

[Don Martin]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:36:53 +0100, Alan Ferris <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:26:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>• You missed the boat. Alan recently provided the info but apparently
>>>>>you were napping again?
>>>>
>>>>Stinky? He's as useless as tit's on a bull in a discussion.
>>>>
>>>• As he often does, Alan provided the embarrassing references and you
>>>missed them because you are so pissed at him you can not see straight.
>>
>>As he often does, he makes up a lot of stuff.
>
>ROFLMAO! Next he will claim I made up all the catholic websites much
>of the information came from. His pall Barker did this once when
>defending puke, Barker claimed I made up a parish website just to fool
>him.

As if it requires any great effort to fool ratprick.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <c6tgp7pn7i1eo8h8l...@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris

<hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:54:09 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
>wrote:
>
>>>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a
double
>>>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
>>>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.
>>
>>• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.
>
>That is what everybody tries to tell him is wrong and it is the part
>he never grasps. He thinks abuse is ok as long as it is in the
>"family".

• that was my impression Alan.

> I feel really sorry for his nieces having to put up with
>that kind of abuse.

• alas

>
>"Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their
>young daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female
>parents "touch" their young son's genitals in just the
>wrong way - only now to have to stand accused of a charge
>of sexual molestation of children." - duke (Earl J Weber)

• I know two guys who did it with their mom when they were in high
school. One of them could talk freely about it. His mom was a bona fide
fox.

>"only a fool fails to understand that a lot of fathers
>teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
>their sons. It's called child molestation outside the
>family unit." - duke (Earl J Weber)
>
>"I was talking about a loving family teasingly pinching
>nipples (pre breast type) and comparing how that's quite
>alright in a family setting but clearly and quickly labeled
>as child molestation outside the family setting."
>- duke (Earl J Weber)
>
>"As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion
>addressing a double standard - what is considered "ok" in
>the family setting quickly becomes molestation by an outsider.
>You can see that in the comment itself." - duke (Earl J Weber)

[duke]

Nope.

>>
>>stinky has no socially redeeming value in his postings, and I just ignore him.
>>To date, I rate his performance at 100% falsification in the manner and way he
>>presents something. But he has no moral code, so I just let him go.
>>
>>duke, American - American

[Alan Ferris]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:25:02 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a double
>>>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
>>>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.
>>
>>• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.
>
>Nope.

"Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their
young daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female
parents "touch" their young son's genitals in just the
wrong way - only now to have to stand accused of a charge
of sexual molestation of children." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"only a fool fails to understand that a lot of fathers
teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
their sons. It's called child molestation outside the
family unit." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"I was talking about a loving family teasingly pinching
nipples (pre breast type) and comparing how that's quite
alright in a family setting but clearly and quickly labeled
as child molestation outside the family setting."
- duke (Earl J Weber)

"As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion
addressing a double standard - what is considered "ok" in
the family setting quickly becomes molestation by an outsider.

You can see that in the comment itself." - duke (Earl J Weber)

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <qm4jp71787makhev8...@4ax.com>, duke

• denial

[duke]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:51:29 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:

>>>>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a
>double
>>>>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
>>>>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.
>>>
>>>• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>• denial

Nope, double standard.

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <0monp7l12q97aq9of...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:51:29 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>>>>>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a
>>double
>>>>>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
>>>>>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.
>>>>
>>>>• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>• denial
>
>Nope, double standard.
>

• who says it's ok for little girls as long as family members do it?

[duke]

As the whole discussion revealed, it's clearly a case of double standards if it
does happen within the family environment.

[Alan Ferris]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:44:55 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>� who says it's ok for little girls as long as family members do it?

>
>As the whole discussion revealed, it's clearly a case of double standards if it
>does happen within the family environment.

"Ever wonder how many male parents teasingly pinched their
young daughters on their newly budding breasts, or female
parents "touch" their young son's genitals in just the
wrong way - only now to have to stand accused of a charge
of sexual molestation of children." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"only a fool fails to understand that a lot of fathers
teasingly pinch their daughters and mothers teasingly touch
their sons. It's called child molestation outside the
family unit." - duke (Earl J Weber)

"I was talking about a loving family teasingly pinching
nipples (pre breast type) and comparing how that's quite
alright in a family setting but clearly and quickly labeled
as child molestation outside the family setting."
- duke (Earl J Weber)

"As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion
addressing a double standard - what is considered "ok" in
the family setting quickly becomes molestation by an outsider.

You can see that in the comment itself." - duke (Earl J Weber)

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <6chqp71vf4adml38v...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:12:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>>In article <0monp7l12q97aq9of...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:51:29 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a
>>>>double
>>>>>>>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly becomes
>>>>>>>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>• denial
>>>
>>>Nope, double standard.
>>>
>>• who says it's ok for little girls as long as family members do it?
>
>As the whole discussion revealed, it's clearly a case of double standards if it
>does happen within the family environment.
>

• dodgeball.

[Paul Duca]

On Apr 29, 1:58 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

If you've read Duke's posts all these years, it's clear that this is
the closest he will EVER get to sexual gratification in this
world...and will be content if that's all he gets in the NEXT.

Paul

[duke]

I post truth. You can go with your best bud, stinky.

[Alan Ferris]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:46:44 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>• dodgeball.
>
>I post truth.

---------------
"Dummy, the Jews didn't have chickens then." - duke (Earl Webber)

Luke 13:34 "...as a hen gathers her brood under her wings..."
---------------
"And God said that no one has ever seen him." - duke (Earl Webber)

Exodus 24:10 "...and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet
there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire...”
---------------
"no one had a job, so no money." - duke (Earl Webber)

Matthew 22:19 "Show me the coin used for paying the tax..."
---------------
"The only religion preceding Christianity was Judaism" - duke (Earl
Webber)

1 Kings 22:53 "For he served Baal, and worshipped him"
--------------

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <pfntp71r32gv3bifn...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:33:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>>In article <6chqp71vf4adml38v...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:12:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <0monp7l12q97aq9of...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:51:29 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As I've stated before, the comment is from a ng discussion addressing a
>>>>>>double
>>>>>>>>>standard - what is considered "ok" in the family setting quickly
becomes
>>>>>>>>>molestation by an outsider. You can see that in the comment itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>• In other words nipple pinching was okay in your family.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>• denial
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, double standard.
>>>>>
>>>>• who says it's ok for little girls as long as family members do it?
>>>
>>>As the whole discussion revealed, it's clearly a case of double
standards if it
>>>does happen within the family environment.
>>>
>>• dodgeball.
>
>I post truth.

• chortilicious

>You can go with your best bud, stinky.
>

• Alan Ferrit does not stink from here, but perhaps you are a bit closer
to his posterior than I? Alan Ferrit is not my best bud, he invites
comparison a African bull elephant during rut. One slip-up and you are
fucked. Alan Does Not forget embarassing shit.

[duke]

I prefer a couple of Hershey's dark chocolate nuggets with almonds daily.

>>You can go with your best bud, stinky.
>
>• Alan Ferrit does not stink from here

His family line is skunk. If skunks don't stink in caleefornia, then you've got
a point.

>, but perhaps you are a bit closer
>to his posterior than I? Alan Ferrit is not my best bud, he invites
>comparison a African bull elephant during rut. One slip-up and you are
>fucked. Alan Does Not forget embarassing shit.

But it's a whole lot of stinky makeup that he posts. And you appear to enjoy
it.

[Alan Ferris]

On Tue, 01 May 2012 06:41:26 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>, but perhaps you are a bit closer
>>to his posterior than I? Alan Ferrit is not my best bud, he invites
>>comparison a African bull elephant during rut. One slip-up and you are
>>fucked. Alan Does Not forget embarassing shit.
>
>But it's a whole lot of stinky makeup that he posts. And you appear to enjoy
>it.

Do you deny writing to a priest in London:


duke (Earl J Webber) send emails to local parish:

"From: Fr.Cridland
To: Earl Weber
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:13 PM
Subject: Please stop

Dear Mr. Weber,
It was bad enough that we received your spiteful letters.
But to now post hateful messages to the Rectory Office is
beyond what even I can accept.

I am not sure if you are a Christian or not. But as a
Catholic I can tell you that we consider it a sin to spread gossip
about other people. Also some of the language you use is not just
disgusting, it truly caused upset in some of the ladies who were
unfortunate enough to read your emails to the Parish.

If I ever receive one more email or letter from you I shall be
forced to go to the police. This behaviour of yours is unwarranted
and is frightening to both my staff and myself.

I shall pray that you find the comfort you are so desperately
seeking. I suggest you look to the arms of our Lord Jesus.

God bless you.

Fr.Jeff Cridland
Our Lady & St.Phillip Neri Roman Catholic Church
Email: jeffcridl...@phillipneri.fsnet.co.uk"



"Dear Fr. Cridland:
As I told you these last few posts, which I made in reply to your
comments to me, your problem is with Alan Ferris, and not myself.

He may be the finest, professed atheist in your congregation.
However, to others such as myself, he does his best to present
himself as one of the most distasteful and unlikeable people on
the internet. For your sake, I hope that you are right in your
assessment of him. To me, I would classify him as an intentional
fraud and liar that, to the ordinary citizen, would never consider
entrusting to him any personal or private information.

One item does bother me about your comments, however. Just
recently I observed your Alan Ferris, or someone of his name,
posting on how he was in trouble with one of his parish support
orginizations, something having to do with possibly some
questionable activity on his part. The last I observed, he
professed that he would, and apparently did, resign rather than
answer to the charges against him. That you and your staff find
him a likeable individual is somewhat contrary to the manner to
which he presents himself to others.

Your Alan Ferris is certainly making a name of himself on the
internet at this time. He's throwing law suit threats all over
with others, revealing names of people who don't want to be
mentioned, and no telling what other shenanigans.

As before, I wish you the best of luck in resolving your troubles
with Alan Ferris. That your church staff should become frightened
of him is understandable.

duke"

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <vnivp7to4fccei3m1...@4ax.com>, duke

• He does one thing exceeding well -- i.e., bait TBRCs.

[duke]

I didn't know you have become a TBRC!!!

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <fq92q7l2lljdehu30...@4ax.com>, duke

• I for damn sure am not a TBRC. You and P.B. are successfully baited
by Alan F.

[duke]

He's got you hook, line and sinker.

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <kks2q7d1ig153pe5m...@4ax.com>, duke

• he's not fishing for agnostics, he's after TBRCs. .

[duke]

Did he ever tell you the one about where he claimed he was done by a priest
while his mum watched?

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <7hr4q7t02t4u4u0go...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:38:10 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>>In article <kks2q7d1ig153pe5m...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 May 2012 08:40:27 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <fq92q7l2lljdehu30...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:15:31 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>In article snip ...

>>>>>>>But it's a whole lot of stinky makeup that he posts. And you appear
>>>>to enjoy
>>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>• He does one thing exceeding well -- i.e., bait TBRCs.
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't know you have become a TBRC!!!
>>>>>
>>>>• I for damn sure am not a TBRC. You and P.B. are successfully baited
>>>>by Alan F.
>>>
>>>He's got you hook, line and sinker.
>>>
>>• he's not fishing for agnostics, he's after TBRCs. .
>
>Did he ever tell you the one about where he claimed he was done by a priest
>while his mum watched?
>

• no

[Alan Ferris]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 05:25:57 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
wrote:

>>>• he's not fishing for agnostics, he's after TBRCs. .
>>
>>Did he ever tell you the one about where he claimed he was done by a priest
>>while his mum watched?
>>
>• no

Just another Earl lie. Seems he cannot resist them. Maybe Satan
gives him a nugget for each one he tells.

------------
>Thanks for your admission that your supposed god did it by magic.

No problem.
------------

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <6d85q75jumnosfunl...@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris

<hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 May 2012 05:25:57 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
>wrote:
>
>>>>• he's not fishing for agnostics, he's after TBRCs. .
>>>
>>>Did he ever tell you the one about where he claimed he was done by a priest
>>>while his mum watched?
>>>
>>• no
>
>Just another Earl lie. Seems he cannot resist them. Maybe Satan
>gives him a nugget for each one he tells.
>

• That would explain his tonage Alan F.

[duke]

But he did.

[Alan Ferris]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 07:15:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>Did he ever tell you the one about where he claimed he was done by a priest
>>>while his mum watched?
>>>
>>• no
>
>But he did.

Liar, put up the post then.

"The Bishops elect the Pope - just like I have always said."
- duke (Earl Weber)

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <n1i7q7lrjr93k2po8...@4ax.com>, duke

• ______

[Alan Ferris]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 09:02:05 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
wrote:

>>>>Did he ever tell you the one about where he claimed he was done by a priest
>>>>while his mum watched?
>>>>
>>>• no
>>
>>But he did.
>>
>• ______

He will do a Barker and run a mile if you ask for evidence.

[Paul Duca (tomservo56954@comcast.net)]

On May 3, 7:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2012 17:38:10 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>
>
>

> >In article <kks2q7d1ig153pe5mae2i5afr8t3s11...@4ax.com>, duke

> ><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 02 May 2012 08:40:27 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>

> >>>In article <fq92q7l2lljdehu3060tdm0e7hed30b...@4ax.com>, duke

> >>><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Tue, 01 May 2012 18:15:31 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>

> >>>>>In article <vnivp7to4fccei3m1v4qsq228ao0m6n...@4ax.com>, duke

> >>>>><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Tue, 01 May 2012 03:43:29 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>In article <pfntp71r32gv3bifndu86bnost0ip69...@4ax.com>, duke

> >>>>>>><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:33:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L.
> >Measures.) wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>In article <6chqp71vf4adml38vclccmoo7k1g9ct...@4ax.com>, duke

> >>>>>>>>><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:12:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L.
> >>>Measures.) wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>>In article <0monp7l12q97aq9ofer7s07kcar6lep...@4ax.com>, duke

> while his mum watched? I wish I had the chance to please MY mommy that way.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <pjv7q7hdfd2ckuf3l...@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris

<hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 May 2012 09:02:05 -0700, r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.)
> wrote:
>
> >>>>Did he ever tell you the one about where he claimed he was done by a
priest
> >>>>while his mum watched?
> >>>>
> >>>• no
> >>
> >>But he did.
> >>
> >• ______
>
> He will do a Barker and run a mile if you ask for evidence.
>

• apologists avoid real evidence like the plague.