Holy Sunday Photos
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Nikon Coolpix L20 10 Megapixels Digital Camera
Next: Going Behind The Grid At 700mm With The Old Wimberly II
From: Chris H on 12 Apr 2010 05:20 In message <hpt67v014a7(a)news4.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes >On 4/11/2010 12:34 PM, Savageduck wrote: >> On 2010-04-11 09:00:52 -0700, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: >> >>> In message <2010041108291529267-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >>>> >>>> Have you guys seen any of Pat Condell's opinion in this regard? >>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u >>> >>> Sounds about right. Question is should we lock up all Catholic clergy >>> on principal? It would be a reasonable position. >> >> Let's start with Ratzinger and work our way down. > >You ready to go to war? Ratzinger has his own country you know. I wonder how much longer that will last. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 12 Apr 2010 05:26 In message <hpu48a119pj(a)news6.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes >On 4/11/2010 8:39 PM, Jeff R. wrote: >> "Chris H"<chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message >> news:AP621zA$NdwLFAX8(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >> >>> Who defines the word "marriage" ? >> >> Well, your precious OED (actually, my 1930 two-vol. Shorter OED) >> specifically stipulates: >> "..the ceremony in which two persons are made husband and wife..." >> Note the singular "wife". >> >> The OED couldn't be wrong, could it? > >What does the full Oxford say (I'm too lazy to dig it out)? > >In any case, now today in some if not most Islamic countries polygamy >is lawful. And Christian ones and many other religions. Including [Native] American -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 12 Apr 2010 05:31 In message <dhh4s55iged6rdo1ki2spdm2eu8h8veq2t(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>>er. >> >>That is a fair reply. However, I have found your input to this thread >>extremely offensive because, to me, you create an air of "meaning well >>to humanity" while belittling those who have been on the receiving end >>of abuse, by your insistence on grammatical correctness on such a >>sensitive issue. From personal experience of these matters, I can >>assure you that tolerance of our ineptitude with grammar and spelling >>would go a very long way towards being a helper rather than one who >>kicks us in the teeth because we are weak. >> >>I value your input to Usenet. I am not attempting to censor you. I just >>said please stop this - simply a request for your consideration. >> >>Yes, this is my reaction to what bothers me more than anything else. > >When Chris writes things, as he just did, like "Sounds about right. >Question is should we lock up all Catholic clergy on principal?" Not that would do far more good than harm. >it is >all but impossible for me to overlook it. How does a person get >through years of schooling without knowing the difference between >"principal" and "principle"? A dyslexic. Knows the difference but has poor spelling. However you are showing the classic symptoms of denial... arguing over spellings when the question is child abuse. It is typical to deflect the argument and get it bogged down in irrelevancies so that you do not have to face the reality that you and your family support a church that aids child abusers >I really don't understand your comment that I belittle the "people who >have been on the receiving end of abuse". I belittle Chris, but - to >the best of my knowledge - Chris has never been abused and has not >been abused by Catholic clergy. You do not know anything that might harm your position of denial. Therefore you can support a church that protects child abusers. > I have never belittled anyone who has >experienced sexual abuse by anyone for being a victim. How do you know? >Chris's presents the position that anyone who is a Catholic, lapsed or >not, supports pedophilia. Not at all. > How can anyone be more offensive than that? >He deserves to be belittled. I said YOU PERSONALLY support a specific church that has covered up and supported child abusers and you equivocate your way out of it. >It's the same type of thinking we see in people who feel that all >Muslims are terrorists, all Germans are Nazis, that all black people >are stupid, and that all Jews will cheat you. Typical.... Refused to address the core problem and deflects and equivocates. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 12 Apr 2010 05:36 In message <hmk4s55ia7h2g3182a3p06q4rl081mpo42(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On 11 Apr 2010 22:34:46 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>It's pretty obvious that lying by your church and child molestation >>done by your priests doesn't bother you. > >If it's obvious, then find one statement that I have made that is in >any way supportive or defensive of the acts of the priests who have >committed molestation or the hierarchy of the church who have ignored >or covered-up these transgressions. Just one. > >That "your church" charge is a bit difficult to argue with. I haven't >been a practicing Catholic for 30 or 40 years, but was once. It isn't >really "my" church, but it's not like club where you turn in a letter >of resignation and your ID card. You just stop believing and stop >going. They don't release you. > >My wife still attends mass, SO your family supports a church that has supported and protected a child abuser... and you STILL equivocate. >Yes, I sent my children to Catholic schools, but that was a choice Still supporting the Church that supports pedophiles... this time by sacrificing your children... (but I expect you can equivocate your way out of this too) >based on the comparative academic conditions of those schools and the >public schools in this district. Find any list of how schools rate by >state and you will find that Florida public schools are down near the >bottom. The Catholic schools and the other private schools provide a >better education. Along with child abuse. >But, if you feel I'm somehow supportive of the church on the issue of >abuse and/or cover-ups, then show me where I've indicated that. I'll >be glad to retract or re-state anything I've said that would give you >this impression. Your wife attends and your children go to their schools -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris Malcolm on 12 Apr 2010 05:52
Jeff R. <contact(a)this.ng> wrote: > "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message > news:AP621zA$NdwLFAX8(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >> Who defines the word "marriage" ? > Well, your precious OED (actually, my 1930 two-vol. Shorter OED) > specifically stipulates: > "..the ceremony in which two persons are made husband and wife..." > Note the singular "wife". > The OED couldn't be wrong, could it? The only OED with claims to being definitive is the full size one. Note too that you's made the classic mistake of not reading the instructions. Your OED doesn't "stipulate" what you quote. It gives it as one of the possible meanings. -- Chris Malcolm |