|
"John H" wrote in message ... On 5 Apr 2005 10:18:31 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: P.Fritz wrote: "It's Only Me" wrote in message ... Kevin, One can use any handle one wants in NG's. Most security experts would recommend that you do not use your real email address in NG's, but if one spoofs their IP that would be a violation of their TOS. My real IP is 24.98.9.150 until my IP decides to change it. As you can see I have never spoofed my IP. Asslicker.....I mean kevin..........is a couple tacos short of a combination plate. I thought you killfiled me? Your petty, childish name calling cries for attention go on, and on, and on. Grow up. Speaking of name-calling, basskisser, do you remember this famous post? That boy is a couple of slices short of a loaf..................no wonder he is the "King" ************************************** On 2 Mar 2005 12:07:35 -0800, wrote: And all of the conservatives here are lying ****ing pigs, just like you, liar. ******************************** That was a jewel. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "It's Only Me" wrote in message ... I don't think Kevin's email is working. I sent him a note via and haven't heard a thing. Maybe he is out trying to buy another bottle of 'schnapps whiskey' so he won't feel 'cow downed' in the NG Fritz, I thought you killfiled me? Why do you continue to stalk me, then? How is it that you stalk every single post I make to any newsgroup? I totally realize that you are desperately seeking attention, and that is how those Hollywood type stalkers start. Grow up. One last time Kevin. He is not stalking you. You, in fact, are the one stalking him in a way as you respond to each of his posts. He is not responding to any of yours. Think about it. |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... P.Fritz wrote: "It's Only Me" wrote in message ... I don't think Kevin's email is working. I sent him a note via and haven't heard a thing. Maybe he is out trying to buy another bottle of 'schnapps whiskey' so he won't feel 'cow downed' in the NG Fritz, I thought you killfiled me? Why do you continue to stalk me, then? How is it that you stalk every single post I make to any newsgroup? I totally realize that you are desperately seeking attention, and that is how those Hollywood type stalkers start. Grow up. One last time Kevin. He is not stalking you. You, in fact, are the one stalking him in a way as you respond to each of his posts. He is not responding to any of yours. Think about it. This is comical.....the poor boob doesn't even know how a killfile works. You hit the nail on the head.........he apparently responds to every one of my posts, he has made physical threats, has "claimed to know everything about me", as attempted to glean information about me from other NGs, constantly tries to bring up my personal life ( which he obviously knows nothing about)......if anyone fits the classic description of a stalker, it is widdle kevin. |
There were many catholic girls in my neighborhood and none of them gave me
blowjobs ; ) "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "-rick-" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: I'd wager that kids growing up anytime though the late 80's considered oral sex to be a form of "sexual relations". If kids think differently today, then what's the reason for it? You should ask the kids who take abstinence pledges yet have higher rates of oral and anal sex. Maybe it's a church thing, I wouldn't know. It's certainly a Catholic church thing. Kind of a broad brush you're painting with there, eh Dougie? |
Kevin,
I just realize I should report you to your ISP for using Kevin nobles email in your posts, shame on you. "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... It's Only Me wrote: Kevin, One can use any handle one wants in NG's. Most security experts would recommend that you do not use your real email address in NG's, but if one spoofs their IP that would be a violation of their TOS. My real IP is 24.98.9.150 until my IP decides to change it. As you can see I have never spoofed my IP. IF you are replying to me, perhaps your ISP will like this little gem: NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 09:53:47 -0500 From: "Kevin Noble" Newsgroups: rec.boats References: t Subject: ( OT ) Clinton was right Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:53:47 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Message-ID: Lines: 67 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.98.9.150 X-Trace: sv3-dGSRlJ0v8vngLd+a55l9uqUqt36bP6/M09dtZEe9WSa3BuZkj/cNK24aIIqEbYu2TJdnbxg6WX+eTKn!wuXRkPzxu5z9fL25x08l kryVSNuvr5QuQdf64Clk8+YPNCGev04MbwWDZRw2kTQAeUYLDL 4g9g== X-Complaints-To: X-DMCA-Complaints-To: X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 If I had ever gotten a blowjob, I would have considered it sex. -- Kevin Noble The best source for home grown. For a clean smooth toke insist on Knoble homegrown. |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, John H wrote:
If the couple are married, Doug, then the Catholic Church has no problems with oral sex. Huh? When did the Catholic Church repeal Humanae Vitae? AFAIK, oral sex is considered a form of contraception. Oral stimulation leading to sexual intercourse is a different matter. |
"It's Only Me" wrote in message ... There were many catholic girls in my neighborhood and none of them gave me blowjobs ; ) Did you try to seduce them with a little anal first? |
Yes, but they said they did not want to put their finger in my anus.
; ) "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "It's Only Me" wrote in message ... There were many catholic girls in my neighborhood and none of them gave me blowjobs ; ) Did you try to seduce them with a little anal first? |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:09:10 -0400, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, John H wrote: If the couple are married, Doug, then the Catholic Church has no problems with oral sex. Huh? When did the Catholic Church repeal Humanae Vitae? AFAIK, oral sex is considered a form of contraception. Oral stimulation leading to sexual intercourse is a different matter. In the eyes of the Church, 'intent' reigns. If one is engaging in oral sex with the specific intent of preventing procreation, then the Church would consider it wrong. If the intent of the oral sex is mutual stimulation, an expression of love, a desire to try something new, or any other reason, except as mentioned above, then it is not wrong - for a man and wife. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:09:10 -0400, thunder wrote: On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, John H wrote: If the couple are married, Doug, then the Catholic Church has no problems with oral sex. Huh? When did the Catholic Church repeal Humanae Vitae? AFAIK, oral sex is considered a form of contraception. Oral stimulation leading to sexual intercourse is a different matter. In the eyes of the Church, 'intent' reigns. If one is engaging in oral sex with the specific intent of preventing procreation, then the Church would consider it wrong. If the intent of the oral sex is mutual stimulation, an expression of love, a desire to try something new, or any other reason, except as mentioned above, then it is not wrong - for a man and wife. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. Are you Catholic? |
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote:
With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. Are you Catholic? |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote: With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. You are perhaps correct. And I should have said that abstention from sex prior to a woman's period is the Church's idea of birth control. |
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, "JimH" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:09:10 -0400, thunder wrote: On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:01:40 -0400, John H wrote: If the couple are married, Doug, then the Catholic Church has no problems with oral sex. Huh? When did the Catholic Church repeal Humanae Vitae? AFAIK, oral sex is considered a form of contraception. Oral stimulation leading to sexual intercourse is a different matter. In the eyes of the Church, 'intent' reigns. If one is engaging in oral sex with the specific intent of preventing procreation, then the Church would consider it wrong. If the intent of the oral sex is mutual stimulation, an expression of love, a desire to try something new, or any other reason, except as mentioned above, then it is not wrong - for a man and wife. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. Are you Catholic? With respect JimH, the Catholic Church most certainly condones any sexual act between a man and a wife as long as the specific intent is *not* to prevent procreation. Yes, I am Catholic and have spent several hours discussing this very matter with priests who were my teachers. Now, I'll admit that these talks occurred many years ago, but I don't think the Church has changed with regard to what is legitimate between a man and a wife. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:03:37 -0400, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote: With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. Are you Catholic? Thunder, you are correct. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:12:43 -0400, "JimH" wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote: With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. You are perhaps correct. And I should have said that abstention from sex prior to a woman's period is the Church's idea of birth control. The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... with birth control during a woman's period. Huh? |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:12:43 -0400, "JimH" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote: With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. You are perhaps correct. And I should have said that abstention from sex prior to a woman's period is the Church's idea of birth control. The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Do you know what they call Catholics who practice the rhythm method? / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Parents. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JimH" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... with birth control during a woman's period. Huh? A brain fart....I meant to say that abstention from sex prior to a woman's period is the Church's idea of birth control. Sorry. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:12:43 -0400, "JimH" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote: With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. You are perhaps correct. And I should have said that abstention from sex prior to a woman's period is the Church's idea of birth control. The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:05:22 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:12:43 -0400, "JimH" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote: With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. You are perhaps correct. And I should have said that abstention from sex prior to a woman's period is the Church's idea of birth control. The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Do you know what they call Catholics who practice the rhythm method? / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Parents. For sure! The Church has hoped that science would develop better ways to determine when a woman was infertile so the rhythm method would be more successful. So far, I don't think much has been done in that regard. The Church's attitude towards birth control, and the impact this attitude has on third world countries (where over-population is the most severe, along with disease) is one of the main reasons I've not been a 'practicing Catholic' for many years. I attend (when I go) a Lutheran church now. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. / / / / / / / / / / -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. |
Doug,
My guess is some Catholics, but I might be wrong. ; ) "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:12:43 -0400, "JimH" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:20:50 -0400, JimH wrote: With all due respect John, you are wrong. The Catholic Church never condoned oral sex. The sole purpose of sex according to the Church is procreation, with birth control during a woman's period. I'm not sure that is totally accurate. Humanae Vitae requires that sexual intercourse be open to life, precluding contraception, but I don't believe it requires all sexual intercourse to be for procreation. It's about giving one's all to a marriage, not giving everything but one's fertility. It is my understanding, oral stimulation, as foreplay, is perfectly acceptable in a marriage. You are perhaps correct. And I should have said that abstention from sex prior to a woman's period is the Church's idea of birth control. The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. Glad to see you're catching on. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. Glad to see you're catching on. Uh oh. Now you're playing NOYB's game, but not as skillfully. |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? Don't be a smartass. Nobody's wake merits a 24 hour wait. Nobody. Period. |
Doug,
A funeral and wake is for the living, not the dead. For those standing in line, it is worth it. What is your problem with others doing what they want? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? Don't be a smartass. Nobody's wake merits a 24 hour wait. Nobody. Period. |
I have no problem with them doing that. However, I can still question their
judgement, not just for standing in line for so long to see a dead body, but also in contributing their time, attention, spirits and money to an organization (the Catholic church) which, as any educated person knows, has a reputation that's dubious, at best. "Me" wrote in message ... Doug, A funeral and wake is for the living, not the dead. For those standing in line, it is worth it. What is your problem with others doing what they want? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:0t8851t90nglhr3dn9c1d7nrnv4anhjqnd@4ax. com... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? Don't be a smartass. Nobody's wake merits a 24 hour wait. Nobody. Period. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... I have no problem with them doing that. However, I can still question their judgement, not just for standing in line for so long to see a dead body, but also in contributing their time, attention, spirits and money to an organization (the Catholic church) which, as any educated person knows, has a reputation that's dubious, at best. There are more than 1 billion people in the work that disagree with you! |
The Catholic Church, along with every organized religion, have situations in
their history that wish they could forget. There have been evil people who have tainted the reputations of every organized religion, yet the major religions do provide excellent guidelines for personal and social happiness. Pope John Paul II was not perfect, but his legacy as a decent strong leader who made a positive impact on Catholics and Non-Catholics will be remembered. I do not believe Doug's flame was directed at those who wait in line to see the leader of their religion, but was a veiled barb directed at the Catholic Church. It reminds me of those bigots who want to chastise the Islamic Religion, due to the action of the terrorists or to call all Protestants terrorists due to the actions of some Protestants terrorists in Northern Ireland. "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... I have no problem with them doing that. However, I can still question their judgement, not just for standing in line for so long to see a dead body, but also in contributing their time, attention, spirits and money to an organization (the Catholic church) which, as any educated person knows, has a reputation that's dubious, at best. There are more than 1 billion people in the work that disagree with you! |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? Don't be a smartass. Nobody's wake merits a 24 hour wait. Nobody. Period. People line up to pay respect to the deceased. If old man Curmudgeon passes away and nobody attends his wake, that's understandable. If 1 million people line up to pay respects to one of the World's most decent people, that's understandable too. He was one of the most recognized people in the World, and touched more lives in 25 years than this entire newsgroup combined will in our entire lives. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... I have no problem with them doing that. However, I can still question their judgement, not just for standing in line for so long to see a dead body, but also in contributing their time, attention, spirits and money to an organization (the Catholic church) I wouldn't do it. which, as any educated person knows, has a reputation that's dubious, at best. I'd clarify that to say "dubious, at worst". Then I might agree with you. The Catholic church has done far more good than bad in the last couple of centuries. "Me" wrote in message ... Doug, A funeral and wake is for the living, not the dead. For those standing in line, it is worth it. What is your problem with others doing what they want? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:0t8851t90nglhr3dn9c1d7nrnv4anhjqnd@4ax .com... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? Don't be a smartass. Nobody's wake merits a 24 hour wait. Nobody. Period. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:0t8851t90nglhr3dn9c1d7nrnv4anhjqnd@4ax. com... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? Don't be a smartass. Nobody's wake merits a 24 hour wait. Nobody. Period. People line up to pay respect to the deceased. If old man Curmudgeon passes away and nobody attends his wake, that's understandable. If 1 million people line up to pay respects to one of the World's most decent people, that's understandable too. He was one of the most recognized people in the World, and touched more lives in 25 years than this entire newsgroup combined will in our entire lives. I wonder why Doug is so upset over this? Is it because over 1 billion people disagree with him or because he considers his opinion the one all should abide by? This reminds me of some folks here giving their opinion of boats and putting down others who disagree with it.. (boating related connection) |
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... I have no problem with them doing that. However, I can still question their judgement, not just for standing in line for so long to see a dead body, but also in contributing their time, attention, spirits and money to an organization (the Catholic church) I wouldn't do it. which, as any educated person knows, has a reputation that's dubious, at best. I'd clarify that to say "dubious, at worst". Then I might agree with you. The Catholic church has done far more good than bad in the last couple of centuries. Yeah...as long as you weren't a native of a country that already had a perfectly fine spiritual tradition to begin with. |
NYOB,
Some people like to view themselves superior to "Ni_____s, Jews, and Catholics. They also like to wear white pointy hats and burn crosses discussing ethnic purity and the superiority of their religious beliefs. I would not begin to assume those people are representative of Protestants or Southerners. "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... I have no problem with them doing that. However, I can still question their judgement, not just for standing in line for so long to see a dead body, but also in contributing their time, attention, spirits and money to an organization (the Catholic church) I wouldn't do it. which, as any educated person knows, has a reputation that's dubious, at best. I'd clarify that to say "dubious, at worst". Then I might agree with you. The Catholic church has done far more good than bad in the last couple of centuries. "Me" wrote in message ... Doug, A funeral and wake is for the living, not the dead. For those standing in line, it is worth it. What is your problem with others doing what they want? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:51:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message news:0t8851t90nglhr3dn9c1d7nrnv4anhjqnd@4a x.com... On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:49:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H" wrote in message The Church condones the 'rhythm method' as an acceptable method of birth control. Who gives a ****? Seriously....what sort of person orders his or her life based on advice from a huge club made up of people who've sworn off marriage & sex (except with young boys)? Well Doug, a few billion Catholics, that's who. Now let me give the rest of your post the attention it deserves. So, in other words, a few billion people take family planning advice from men who've sworn off family life. I understand now. That's like going to a podiatrist for heart problems. PS. If you want to know who may give a ****, turn on CNN, NBC, CBS, etc. You'll get the idea. Yes. A million people viewing a dead guy who's supposed to have his own red phone to god. And, they're waiting about 24 hours to see the body. To that, I offer what many mothers used to say: "Just because your friends do something stupid doesn't mean YOU have to." You never attended a wake, Doug? Don't be a smartass. Nobody's wake merits a 24 hour wait. Nobody. Period. |
"Me" wrote in message
... The Catholic Church, along with every organized religion, have situations in their history that wish they could forget. There have been evil people who have tainted the reputations of every organized religion, yet the major religions do provide excellent guidelines for personal and social happiness. Even lately, the Vatican has danced when certain aspects of recent history have been questioned. Pope John Paul II was not perfect, but his legacy as a decent strong leader who made a positive impact on Catholics and Non-Catholics will be remembered. Actually, I think he was cool. This is not about him personally. I'm especially amazed at much of what he did while still in Poland, and I wish Martin Luther King had been around to see it. The two of them would've seen eye to eye, as far as resisting evil and embarrassing those who believe they're powerful. However, you might want to think about this: Popes believe (loosely, perhaps) that they have a special relationship or connection to god. So do the emperor of Japan and the Dalai Lama. How do you feel about this? Now....how do you feel about "civilians" who think god talks to them? What if your wife says the same thing? How about an odd looking homeless person ranting on a street corner? If you believe every religious person has the same ability to communicate with god, then logically, you cannot point to the pope as someone special. He's no different than the guy with the biggest funny hat at an Elks club. He just got lucky. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com