FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/98508-question-karen-winter-other.html)

Leif Erikson 15-08-2006 08:20 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
Karen Winter, schismatic ex-congregant at Holy Faith
Episcopal, wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
>> from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive, Santa
>> Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
>> evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
>> potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr. Dale
>> is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the same
>> conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church of the
>> Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.

>
>
>
> Thanks, Derek. You're too late, Bubbe. We haven't attended Holy Faith
> for some time.


Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped
attending in early July.

Could it be that an important person in the church
expressed his views in support of traditional
Episcopal/Anglican doctrine, and you, you model of
"tolerance", grabbed the FAS-wreckage by the hand and
stomped off? Is that what happened, Karen?

>
> God forgive you. I do.


Derek saw through your sham "forgiveness" before. He
would never be fooled by it again.

Scented Nectar 15-08-2006 08:31 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
cheeky the clown wrote:
> > How do I say this to you delicately?

>
> You could start by learning that there's no E in masturbation, dumbass.


Don't whiff off into a rant about spelling.

> > I referred to the human-assisted masterbation

>
> Which you find acceptable when Karen does it to a bird, even if you
> can't spell it. At 46, no less.


You have been corrected about my age several times now. Are you that
stubborn, that even when a correction involves something as minor as
age, you refuse to budge? Anyways, back to the matter at hand.
Actively, and on the human's initiative, masturbating a bull to
completion, is NOT more moral than passively, and on the animal's
initiative, allowing the bird to masturbate on one.

> > I still think it's gross, but the bird was definitely not abused.

>
> Definitely? You can't speak for the bird because you weren't a witness
> to it. You have Karen's self-serving account.


Then, you have her account too. Since neither you or I are Glorfindel,
the best info we have on the matter is her account. I believe that I
have been portraying her account accurately, and that you've been
twisting it.

> > What is The Side?

>
> The Confederacy of Dunces who support AR at AAEV, TPA, and AFV.


Your evil arch-enemies?

> > > It was very sexual for
> > > her.

> >
> > Prove this. She has not said so.

>
> She said it was "sweet." She's so happy the bird liked her more than
> other birds. Etc. Everything she's said, in toto, indicates prurient
> interest in what happened.


Sweet does not necessarily indicate feeling sexual. I think it's far
more likely that she was happy that the bird was happy.

> > > > Morally, she is not lower than the ranchers.
> > >
> > > So you're taking the side that it's better and moral to ****
> > > animals so long as you don't eat them.

> >
> > I don't believe in any sexual abuse of animals.

>
> Except when you know of Karen's experience with it, then it's okay.


If you want to get technical about it, the bird sexually approached
her, so if there is any abuse, the bird was the abuser!!! Since she
consented to let her hand be used, there isn't any abuse after all.

Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/


Derek[_2_] 15-08-2006 08:42 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
alt.religion.christian.episcopal replaced.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:48:34 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
>> from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive, Santa
>> Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
>> evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
>> potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr. Dale
>> is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the same
>> conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church of the
>> Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.

>
>Thanks, Derek.


No problem, really.

>You're too late, Bubbe. We haven't attended Holy Faith
>for some time.


I already know that, Karen. Fr. Dale told me that neither
of you have been back since early July after he stated his
traditional views regarding matters pertaining to the
Episcopal church. In short, your and Sylvia's unholy union
isn't tolerated there. And let's not forget your hatred of
children and the views you hold regarding "responsible
paedophiles". He was very interested about your quotes,
and he's very concerned as to why you chose a church
that specialises in child care in the first place.

"The supposed "innocence" of children is a myth only
believed by those who either have never known a child,
or wilfully close their eyes. Children are capable of every
sin there is."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o

"Laws are not the answer; love is the answer. And
sometimes that love is provided by caring and responsible
pedophiles or ephebophiles. OTOH, sometimes it's just a
quick jerk-off or blowjob, and if people didn't make a big
deal out of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o

"You just don't get it, do you? Pedophiles don't hate children
-- they like them, enjoy being with them, love them both as
sexual partners and as companions. A child-hating pedophile
is a contradiction in terms. Many pedophiles and ephebophiles
work in professions where they come in contact with children,
and are excellent in those fields because they understand and
like children, and can relate to them well on a one-to-one basis."
http://tinyurl.com/2l79z

"I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met."
http://snipurl.com/4aej

"Do I hate kids? Yes!"
http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx

"Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I
hate YOUR children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every
shitstain, every whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of
the little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON
THAT?!"
http://snipurl.com/4ae8

You foolishly believed that, since being kicked out of your
former parish for being a potential danger to the children
there you could escape your past, but I've put an end to
that by contacting,










to make them all aware of it. Hang your head in shame
and keep running, Karen. Oh, and by the way, thanks
for admitting you are Karen Winter at long last. All you
need to do now is apologise to all those you've lied to
here while trying to conceal your true, shameful identity?
When can we expect that?

Derek[_2_] 15-08-2006 08:47 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:20:28 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>Karen Winter, schismatic ex-congregant at Holy Faith Episcopal, wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
>>> from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive, Santa
>>> Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
>>> evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
>>> potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr. Dale
>>> is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the same
>>> conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church of the
>>> Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.

>>
>> Thanks, Derek. You're too late, Bubbe. We haven't attended Holy Faith
>> for some time.

>
>Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped
>attending in early July.
>
>Could it be that an important person in the church
>expressed his views in support of traditional
>Episcopal/Anglican doctrine, and you, you model of
>"tolerance", grabbed the FAS-wreckage by the hand and
>stomped off? Is that what happened, Karen?


Yes, that's exactly what happened.

>> God forgive you. I do.

>
>Derek saw through your sham "forgiveness" before. He
>would never be fooled by it again.


Correct!

Watch the headers, Leif. Karen removed alt.religion.christian.episcopal.
before replying for some very strange reason.

Leif Erikson 15-08-2006 09:00 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
Karen Winter, schismatic ex-congregant at Holy Faith
Episcopal, wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
>> from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive, Santa
>> Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
>> evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
>> potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr. Dale
>> is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the same
>> conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church of the
>> Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.

>
>
>
> Thanks, Derek. You're too late, Bubbe. We haven't attended Holy Faith
> for some time.


Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped
attending in early July.

Could it be that an important person in the church
expressed his views in support of traditional
Episcopal/Anglican doctrine, and you, you model of
"tolerance", grabbed the FAS-wreckage by the hand and
stomped off? Is that what happened, Karen?

>
> God forgive you. I do.


Derek saw through your sham "forgiveness" before. He
would never be fooled by it again.

Eden 15-08-2006 09:01 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
Derek wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:20:28 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>>Karen Winter, schismatic ex-congregant at Holy Faith Episcopal, wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
>>>>from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive, Santa
>>>>Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
>>>>evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
>>>>potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr. Dale
>>>>is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the same
>>>>conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church of the
>>>>Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.
>>>
>>>Thanks, Derek. You're too late, Bubbe. We haven't attended Holy Faith
>>>for some time.

>>
>>Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped
>>attending in early July.
>>
>>Could it be that an important person in the church
>>expressed his views in support of traditional
>>Episcopal/Anglican doctrine, and you, you model of
>>"tolerance", grabbed the FAS-wreckage by the hand and
>>stomped off? Is that what happened, Karen?

>
>
> Yes, that's exactly what happened.
>
>
>>>God forgive you. I do.

>>
>>Derek saw through your sham "forgiveness" before. He
>>would never be fooled by it again.

>
>
> Correct!
>
> Watch the headers, Leif. Karen removed alt.religion.christian.episcopal.
> before replying for some very strange reason.


Fixed and reposted. Thanks for the alert.

Glorfindel 15-08-2006 09:06 PM

Question for Glorfindel
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

<snip>

> WWJD?


I'm *quite* sure He wouldn't make his living
masturbating captive bulls and selling their
semen. He was a carpenter before He began His
religious ministry; there's no record of him
making money off the abuse of any animal.

But He did say it was right to lay down one's life
for the sheep, and that not a sparrow falls
without His concern. He also compared Himself
to a mother hen.

chico chupacabra 15-08-2006 11:42 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
Karen Winter, sectarian bird molestor and chronic church-shopper, wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
> > Yes, that's correct. I saw to it that Karen and Sylvia were removed
> > from St. Bede's Episcopal Church, 1601 South St. Francis Drive,
> > Santa Fe, NM after The Rev. Dr. Richard W. Murphy looked into the
> > evidence I provided him concerning their hatred of children and the
> > potential threat they posed to young children there, and now Fr.
> > Dale is looking at that same evidence. Hopefully, he will reach the
> > same conclusion and remove them from their new parish, The Church
> > of the Holy Faith just around the corner from where they live.

>
>
> Thanks, Derek. You're too late, Bubbe. We haven't attended Holy
> Faith for some time.


Why not? Because you're too SECTARIAN to worship with those with whom
you disagree?

> God forgive you.


God forgive YOU. For molesting animals, for rebelling against your
father, for abandoning your son, for joining dress up communes, for
tearing apart two marriages to pursue *******ism, for wanting your
grandson to grow up homosexual like you and rebel against his father,
for not liking your son as a person, for causing schism in your church,
and for being an impenitent total shit about all of it.

> I do.


No, you don't. It's clear from this little show that you don't.

> I know you just don't have the ability
> to understand what freedom means in a diverse society.


Apparently YOU're the person who has a problem with it because you have
to shop around for a congregation that suits your peculiar point of
view. Why can't you tolerate others the way you want them to tolerate
you, you intolerant, sectarian, schismatic bird diddler?

chico chupacabra 15-08-2006 11:55 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
Skanky, stoned 46 year-old bus rider, wrote:

> > > How do I say this to you delicately?

> >
> > You could start by learning that there's no E in masturbation,
> > dumbass.

>
> Don't whiff off into a rant about spelling.


I didn't, moron. Learn to ****ing spell.

> > > I referred to the human-assisted masterbation

> >
> > Which you find acceptable when Karen does it to a bird, even if you
> > can't spell it. At 46, no less.

>
> You have been corrected about my age


You're in your mid-40s and can't spell masturbation.

> If you want to get technical about it, the bird sexually approached
> her, so if there is any abuse, the bird was the abuser!!!


Now you're blaming the bird just like she did.

> ...she consented to let her hand be used


Exactly, and that makes her a pervert.

chico chupacabra 15-08-2006 11:59 PM

Question for Karen Winter
 
Karen Winter, schismatic bird diddler, wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> <snip>


Why did you snip those insightful questions? Why won't you tell us what
you did after your little bird friend was finished?

> > WWJD?

>
> I'm *quite* sure He wouldn't


He wouldn't diddle a cockatiel, would he?

Leif Erikson 16-08-2006 12:19 AM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

> Skanky, stoned 46 year-old bus rider, wrote:
>
>
>>>>How do I say this to you delicately?
>>>
>>>You could start by learning that there's no E in masturbation,
>>>dumbass.

>>
>>Don't whiff off into a rant about spelling.

>
>
> I didn't, moron. Learn to ****ing spell.
>
>
>>>>I referred to the human-assisted masterbation
>>>
>>>Which you find acceptable when Karen does it to a bird, even if you
>>>can't spell it. At 46, no less.

>>
>>You have been corrected about my age

>
>
> You're in your mid-40s and can't spell masturbation.


She can do it all day, though.


>>If you want to get technical about it, the bird sexually approached
>>her, so if there is any abuse, the bird was the abuser!!!

>
>
> Now you're blaming the bird just like she did.
>
>
>>...she consented to let her hand be used

>
>
> Exactly, and that makes her a pervert.


chico chupacabra 16-08-2006 12:29 AM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> > Skanky, stoned 46 year-old bus rider, wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>How do I say this to you delicately?
> >>>
> >>>You could start by learning that there's no E in masturbation,
> >>>dumbass.
> >>
> >>Don't whiff off into a rant about spelling.

> >
> >
> > I didn't, moron. Learn to ****ing spell.
> >
> >
> >>>>I referred to the human-assisted masterbation
> >>>
> >>>Which you find acceptable when Karen does it to a bird, even if you
> >>>can't spell it. At 46, no less.
> >>
> >>You have been corrected about my age

> >
> >
> > You're in your mid-40s and can't spell masturbation.

>
> She can do it all day, though.


And night. That's why she's up at 3am. Remember, her popularity at
"Atmo" and "Skanky Town" was due to her being a total anything-goes
slut.

> >>If you want to get technical about it, the bird sexually approached
> >>her, so if there is any abuse, the bird was the abuser!!!

> >
> >
> > Now you're blaming the bird just like she did.
> >
> >
> >>...she consented to let her hand be used

> >
> >
> > Exactly, and that makes her a pervert.


chico chupacabra 16-08-2006 12:34 AM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and nowposts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> > > Skanky, stoned 46 year-old bus rider, wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>How do I say this to you delicately?
> > >>>
> > >>>You could start by learning that there's no E in masturbation,
> > >>>dumbass.
> > >>
> > >>Don't whiff off into a rant about spelling.
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't, moron. Learn to ****ing spell.
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>I referred to the human-assisted masterbation
> > >>>
> > >>>Which you find acceptable when Karen does it to a bird, even if
> > >>>you can't spell it. At 46, no less.
> > >>
> > >>You have been corrected about my age
> > >
> > >
> > > You're in your mid-40s and can't spell masturbation.

> >
> > She can do it all day, though.

>
> And night. That's why she's up at 3am. Remember, her popularity at
> "Atmo" and "Skanky Town" was due to her being a total anything-goes
> slut.


But apparently she has her limits. I don't think Karen will appreciate
Skanky's view of S&M.

http://tinyurl.com/r73cz

> > >>If you want to get technical about it, the bird sexually
> > >>approached her, so if there is any abuse, the bird was the
> > >>abuser!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Now you're blaming the bird just like she did.
> > >
> > >
> > >>...she consented to let her hand be used
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly, and that makes her a pervert.


Glorfindel 16-08-2006 01:38 AM

Question for Glorfindel
 
Eden wrote:
> Derek wrote:


Glorfindel wrote:

>>>> We haven't attended Holy Faith for some time.


>>> Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped attending in early
>>> July.


That's correct.

In any case, we aren't there any longer, so you've
gotten what you wanted. If it makes you feel
better, I'm glad for you. I bear you no ill will.

I don't think we'll be attending any church for a
while at least.

<snip>

Leif Erikson[_1_] 16-08-2006 06:24 AM

Question for Glorfindel
 
Karen Winter, *INTOLERANT* bird-diddling schismatic,
whined:
> Eden wrote:
>
>> Derek wrote:

>
>
> Karen Winter, *INTOLERANT* bird-diddling schismatic, whined:
>
>>>>> We haven't attended Holy Faith for some time.

>
>
>>>> Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped attending in early
>>>> July.

>
>
> That's correct.
>
> In any case, we aren't there any longer, so you've
> gotten what you wanted.


What is it you think I wanted?


> I don't think we'll be attending any church for a
> while at least.


Your participation always was form over substance, anyway.

I suppose Sylvia could maybe find a local Norse pagan
coven or whatever-the-**** it is. Santa Fe is full of
that kind of new-agey phony shit.

Leif Erikson 16-08-2006 07:30 AM

Question for Glorfindel
 
Karen Winter, *INTOLERANT* bird-diddling schismatic,
whined:
> Eden wrote:
>
>> Derek wrote:

>
>
> Karen Winter, *INTOLERANT* bird-diddling schismatic, whined:
>
>>>>> We haven't attended Holy Faith for some time.

>
>
>>>> Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped attending in early
>>>> July.

>
>
> That's correct.
>
> In any case, we aren't there any longer, so you've
> gotten what you wanted.


What is it you think I wanted?


> I don't think we'll be attending any church for a
> while at least.


Your participation always was form over substance, anyway.

I suppose Sylvia could maybe find a local Norse pagan
coven or whatever-the-**** it is. Santa Fe is full of
that kind of new-agey phony shit.

Leif Erikson 16-08-2006 07:33 AM

Question for Karen Winter, schismatic bird-diddling intolerantcarpet-muncher
 
Glorfindel wrote:

> Eden wrote:
>
>> Derek wrote:

>
>
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
>>>>> We haven't attended Holy Faith for some time.

>
>
>>>> Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped attending in early
>>>> July.

>
>
> That's correct.


So that isn't "some time". People usually use that
expression to mean rather a long time. It's been only
a bit over a month - not a long time as most people
measure time.

Your natural reaction is to exaggerate and lie. Why is
that?


> In any case, we aren't there any longer, so you've
> gotten what you wanted.


Again: what is it you think I wanted?


> I don't think we'll be attending any church for a
> while at least.


Why is it important to you to tell us that?

chico chupacabra 16-08-2006 05:32 PM

Question for Karen Winter
 
Karen Winter, schismatic bird diddler, wrote:

> Eden wrote:
> > Derek wrote:

>
> Karen Winter, schismatic bird diddler, wrote:
>
> >>>> We haven't attended Holy Faith for some time.

>
> >>> Not all that long a time - apparently you stopped attending in
> >>> early July.

>
> That's correct.
>
> In any case, we aren't there any longer


A little too much sound doctrine to crash your radical sectarian
predilections?

> I don't think we'll be attending any church for a
> while at least.


At least til you have a chance to do a little more homework and find a
dysfunctional parish where you and your FAS-defective sidekick can
cower behind the other radicals and throw your schism bombs at "fundies"
in the traditional (i.e., Christian) parishes where you feel so out of
place because they don't think your radical sect is all that congruent
with Christianity.

Glorfindel 16-08-2006 10:26 PM

Question forGlorfindel
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

Glorfindel wrote:

>>I don't think we'll be attending any church for a
>>while at least.


> At least til you have a chance to do a little more homework and find a
> dysfunctional parish where you and your FAS-defective sidekick can
> cower behind the other radicals and throw your schism bombs at "fundies"
> in the traditional (i.e., Christian) parishes where you feel so out of
> place because they don't think your radical sect is all that congruent
> with Christianity.



LOL! Other than your wildly partisan rhetoric -- yes. Right now,
I'm sick to death of the infighting going on in the Episcopal
church, and tired of dodging Derek's pointless harassment. It
makes it very difficult to focus one's mind on the reason one is
there -- to worship God. It looks as if the American church
may well split, and if so, I'll go with the Episcopalians, if
and when things settle down. I miss receiving the Sacrament every
week and participating in the liturgy, but this mess can't last
forever...I hope....

I have no interest in joining another denomination. I am, and
always will be, an Episcopalian. The Protestants don't have
valid sacraments or an apostolic priesthood, and the Romans have
*shudder* Pope Ratzinger.



chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 01:01 AM

Question for Karen Winter, bird-diddling anglo catholicschismatic
 
Karen Winter, bird-diddling "anglo catholic" schismatic, wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> Karen Winter, bird-diddling "anglo catholic" schismatic,
> wrote:
>
> >>I don't think we'll be attending any church for a
> >>while at least.

>
> > At least til you have a chance to do a little more homework and
> > find a dysfunctional parish where you and your FAS-defective
> > sidekick can cower behind the other radicals and throw your schism
> > bombs at "fundies" in the traditional (i.e., Christian) parishes
> > where you feel so out of place because they don't think your
> > radical sect is all that congruent with Christianity.

>
>
> I'm sick to death of the infighting going on in the Episcopal
> church,


Then why have you been such an active participant in it all these years,
you schismatic shitbag? YOU have been an active participant. YOU have
no grounds for objecting to the shit hitting the fan. YOU got exactly
what you want: homosexual unions, *** clergy, the whole mess of it.

> and tired of dodging Derek


His undertaking is respectable and, from the gist of what I've
gleaned, greatly appreciated by those whose flocks you've invaded and
endangered.

> It makes it very difficult to focus one's mind on the reason one is
> there -- to worship God.


You never worshiped the one whose church you've sought to rend in half
with your radical beliefs and demands.

> It looks as if the American church may well split,


Because you and your fellow radicals got what you wanted. You didn't
count on others taking issue with you and standing their ground.

> and if so, I'll go with the Episcopalians


No, you'll go with the radicals and schismatics.

> I have no interest in joining


A real church. You're shopping for more rabble-rousers whose interests
have nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with
your queer notions of Political Correctness. You're a fraud.

Glorfindel 17-08-2006 04:44 AM

Question forGlorfindel
 

chico chupacabra

What denomination do you belong to? If you are
Episcopalian, then you know there are people of
good will and learning on both sides of the
issues. If you are not, why should those issues
concern you? Yes, I have strong opinions on some
of the issues, but I am tired of the fighting,
and I don't want to be involved in it any more
until the whole thing is settled one way or the
other. I want to focus on God.

<snip>

chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 05:13 AM

Question for Karen Winter
 
Karen Winter wrote:

> chico chupacabra
>
> What denomination do you belong to?


I don't exactly care to make a public issue of my religious views. If
you go back and read through my old posts, you'll see that the only time
I discuss religion at all is when you bring it up.

> If you are
> Episcopalian, then you know there are people of
> good will and learning on both sides of the
> issues.


I know that you're not one of them. I've read your posts and observed
your contentious spirit regarding the division in your church. You've
admitted to being part of it for a long time. You've disrespectfully
likened your depraved cause to other more noble causes. You've been very
"in-your-face" about it in our discussions. You're not a person of good
will, Karen.

> If you are not, why should those issues
> concern you?


Because the issues transcend all of Christianity. Episcopal Christians
shouldn't fear the onslaught of radical change you schismatics have been
pushing. But it's not enough for you to screw up your own denomination
-- the radicals want to hijack other ones, too. You see it in PCUSA and
UMC. Those church bodies are almost as divided as yours is now, and I
hope they can deal with it more peaceably than people like you have in
yours.

> Yes, I have strong opinions on some
> of the issues,


Strong enough to cause all this division in the first place.

> but I am tired of the fighting,


Hint: the traditionalists didn't go looking for one. YOU did.

> and I don't want to be involved in it any more


Then why did you start it? Why did you get involved? Why are you on
written record with various groups on the side of radical change? You
made yourself part of the division. You've done nothing to heal it, only
to exacerbate it.

> until the whole thing is settled one way or the
> other. I want to focus on God.


IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished. Maybe you need to take
another look at yourself, your church, and the whole nature of the
controversy. I admit I'm on the outside of it. I can see from where I am
that it's not doing anyone any good, not even the radicals when they
"win," because it divides your church even further -- past the point of
no return.

You've been a very willing party to the alienation of simple Christians,
Karen -- people with a simple faith who only want to go to church to
worship their God. You say that's what you want, but you wouldn't allow
them the same comfort in their pews that you seek for yourself. They
weren't asking YOU to change. You were demanding THEY change. They
didn't go looking for fights. You brought it to them. When you brought
it to them, you brought it to the global fellowship of Anglicans. And
when you did that, you brought it to the wider body of believers.

Is it worth it, Karen? Is it worth telling people just a couple months
ago "don't let the door hit you on the way out" when traditionalists
said they couldn't support this travesty? Is it worth being chastised by
the African bishops yours have repeatedly alienated? Is it worth
watching congregations leave your fold? Is it worth the grief and
confusion you've caused little old ladies who wonder just what their
church really stands for anymore?

You got what you wanted. Go ahead and enjoy it. Nobody else is.

chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 05:48 AM

Question for Karen Winter
 
correction

chico chupacabra wrote:

> IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished.


Dang, chico is too weary to write tonight. It should read:

You're too weary to FINISH what you STARTED.

Leif Erikson 17-08-2006 05:56 AM

Question for Karen Winter
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

> correction
>
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
>> IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished.

>
>
> Dang, chico is too weary to write tonight. It should read:
>
> You're too weary to FINISH what you STARTED.


But she's just dumb enough to start what she can't
possibly finish.

pearl[_1_] 17-08-2006 10:01 AM

Question for chico, supporter of animal diddling and mass murder
 

'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

So what went wrong, 'chico'? Tell us how you think it happened.

WELL?





chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 01:54 PM

Question for chico, supporter of animal diddling and mass murder
 
Lesley, who flunked out of engineering school, wrote:

> So what went wrong, 'chico'?


The terrorists you and other anti-semites support hijacked commercial
aircraft fully-laden with fuel for transcontinental flights, flew them
into buildings (and a field), two of which were the two main WTC
buildings. The initial impact and resulting fire weakened the steel
structure, causing floors above and below the impact areas to collapse.
This caused undue stress on the remaining structure, which gave way
floor by floor as it pancaked down. It went down instead of up because
of gravity, a natural force you irrationally reject out of hand.

I've given you links to reports written by engineers which detail the
metal fatigue caused by the impact and fire. Their reports on the steel
are based on scientific metalurgical testing. Their analyses of the
collapse is based on their expertise in the field.

You've given us a load of BS from crackpot conspiracy theory sites. Your
"experts" consist of an elderly economist who was put out to pasture
some time ago by the administration, a "cold fusion" proponent whose
fellow faculty members have disowned him and his loony beliefs about
9/11 (tenure is not a good thing), and a cast of assorted nutjobs who
have no experience in metals science, engineering, or any relevant field
-- just like you.

chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 02:06 PM

Question for Karen Winter
 
Leif Erikson wrote:

>> correction
>>
>> chico chupacabra wrote:
>>
>>> IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished.

>>
>>
>>
>> Dang, chico is too weary to write tonight. It should read:
>>
>> You're too weary to FINISH what you STARTED.

>
>
> But she's just dumb enough to start what she can't possibly finish.


I've noticed that. She backs down and turns tail every time she asks me
questions like she has in this thread. When I see she's replied, I can
safely guess before I look at it that the most salient points I've made
have been snipped and all that remains are questions about my
motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"

For someone who thinks she cares more than anyone else, she sure is
disingenuous.

[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 04:54 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 

chico chupacabra wrote:
> Karen Winter, bird diddler ordinaire, wrote:
>
> > >>>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.

> >
> > >>> I approve of agriculture;

> >
> > >> You approve of

> >
> > "diddling" animals

>
> No, I object to your "regular" diddling of small animals. You weren't
> engaged in agriculture or any pursuit other than jacking off a little
> animal.


Companion birds often grow to identify with their human caregivers.
That's the whole point of hand-rearing young birds and individually
housing them. It's a damn shame the way we purposely distort the
behavior of other creatures for our own benefit, but that's
domstication for you.

Isolated, intact adult birds perceive caretakers as their mates and
exhibit typical adult behaviors towards them. The birds become
possessive, protective, nurturing and sexual. These are instinctual
needs of adult birds and good caretakers make sure these needs are
safely met.

Birds can die from sexual-related stress. Permanently caged adults
will rub themselves on perches or water containers causing feather loss
and hard to heal sikn abrasions. Others will over-groom until they are
featherless. Birds lucky enough to be regularly handled by their
people and not treated as mere sunroom ornaments will rub on the
hands, arms or head of their human "mates". It's as normal as the
behavior of these poor creatures gets. Karen's fortunate she's the
love object of a cockatiel and not a macaw. That can get pretty
intense.

What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
Do you have any comapssion at all for the animals we have appropriated?

Like so many who oppose giving other cretures the respect and care they
deserve, you suffer from one-dimensional, profit motivated experience
of animals. In other words, you were too long down on the farm, dude.

Elsewhere you stated that cattle have all the protection they need
under state animal welfare laws. Please refer to Texas law Title 9.
Sec. 42.09 (h) (2) which exempts animal husbandry and farming practices
from state anti-cruelty statutes. So, by your reasoning, no protection
is all the protection livestock need.


Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 05:19 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
>
>What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
>against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?


Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate, or,
failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
or do what it wants to do on a soft toy. What she shouldn't
do is debase it or herself by allowing it to masturbate on her
hand.

[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 06:16 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 

Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
> >
> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?

>
> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,


You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds. It makes them "better
pets", since birds who grow up in a flock aren't too keen on humans
reaching in and grabbing at them.

If you put a strange bird into a cage with a bird unaccusomed to
members of its own species, one of them is going to get hurt and very
possibly killed.

It would be difficult and probably impossible to undo the damage that
has already been done to this old cockatiel. Karen is making the best
of a heartbreaking situation.

> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down


Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.

> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.


The bird sees Karen as it's mate and many birds are strictly
monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.

Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys". They would immediately rip
it apart and eat the fibers causing serious intestinal problems. Birds
only get hard toys, either hard wood which simulate tree branches and
are wholly digestible or plastic toys which most birds ignore.

>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing it to masturbate on her
> hand.


What a prude! Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing". Someone
else destroyed this cockatiel's ability to relate to his own kind,
that's debasing. If Karen is willing to offer this poor creature an
outlet for his frustration, more power to her. Anyone who cares about
her animal companion would do the same.


Glorfindel 17-08-2006 06:38 PM

Question for Karen Winter
 
chico chupacabra wrote:

<snip>

> questions about my
> motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"


That's reasonable. I don't know why you are so hostile to
*** people in the church unless I know what religious
group you came from. A lot of it is cultural ignorance
or literalist Biblical interpretation. People who come
from denominations with a different approach to studying
the Bible, like classical Anglicans/Episcopalians, are
often more open to other interpretations.

And a lot of it comes from *** people being more visible.
Derek couldn't have done what he did to us while we were
in California, because people in the church there knew us.
We had friends, I'd been involved in altar guild and
licensed by the bishop as a Lay Eucharistic Minister,
been sponsored for Cursillo and attended, given altar
vessels and other things to my parish, and so on. People
would have known what Derek claimed was ridiculous.
But here, no one knew us very well, and they were willing
to accept Derek's wild accusations at face value. I think
that was why he waited to attack us until we moved.

The same is true of *** people in general. When ***
people can come out in the church and be involved
openly in congregations and ministries, even be
clergy, people see they are just people, fellow
Christians, sinners like all of us, but no more so
than other Christians. That has happened over the
last several decades in places like California and New
Hampshire In places like Africa, where gays are still
invisible in many places, people believe whatever
the anti-*** people claim about them. It's always
an uphill battle for minorities.


Leif Erikson[_2_] 17-08-2006 07:30 PM

Question for Karen Winter
 
Karen Winter, 60-ish career wastrel and bird-diddlier and schismatic,
whined:
> chico chupacabra wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > questions about my
> > motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"

>
> That's reasonable. I don't know why you are so hostile to
> *** people in the church unless I know what religious
> group you came from. A lot of it is cultural ignorance
> or literalist Biblical interpretation. People who come
> from denominations with a different approach to studying
> the Bible, like classical Anglicans/Episcopalians, are
> often more open to other interpretations.
>
> And a lot of it comes from *** people being more visible.
> Derek couldn't have done what he did to us


What did Derek "do" to you, Karen?


> while we were in California,


Thanks for the indirect acknowledgment you are Karen Winter.


> because people in the church there knew us.


Did the people in the churches you attended in California *or* New
Mexico know of your advocacy of pedophilia and your championing the
interests of [retch] "responsible pedophiles"? Did they know about
Sylvia's dangerous hatred for all children?


> We had friends, I'd been involved in altar guild and
> licensed by the bishop as a Lay Eucharistic Minister,
> been sponsored for Cursillo and attended, given altar
> vessels and other things to my parish, and so on. People
> would have known what Derek claimed was ridiculous.


What did Derek claim, Karen? He didn't claim anything. He forwarded
your uncoerced writings, your blurting out of your loathsome values, to
the rector of St. Bede's Episcopal church, and now, apparently, to the
rector of the Holy Faith Episcopal church. If he had noticed that you
lived in Antioch in Northern California and had looked up a list of
Episcopal churches in that area, he might well have sent the same
material to any church officials' e-mail addresses he could find for
that area, too.


> But here, no one knew us very well, and they were willing
> to accept Derek's wild accusations at face value. I think
> that was why he waited to attack us until we moved.


You really are losing your grip. It's simply astonishing that you
don't seem to understand *at all* that the the legally responsible
people at an institution like a church have both a moral and a legal
obligation to take information like that contained in Derek's e-mails
very seriously. You can blabber until you're blue in the face that
laws concerning pedophilia are wrong, but your society is vehemently
against your position.

Derek made *no* accusations against you at all, based on the material
he said he sent to two church rectors. Rather, he provided them with
written statements you have freely made, statements which clearly place
you far outside the community standards of morality and protection of
children. People at St. Bede's, at least, take their responsbilities
seriously enough that they apparently initiated discussions with you
that led to your _de facto_ expulsion from that church. We'd all be
very curious to know what discussions you might have with the rector of
Holy Faith if you have any at all.


> The same is true of *** people in general. When ***
> people can come out in the church and be involved
> openly in congregations and ministries, even be
> clergy, people see they are just people, fellow
> Christians, sinners like all of us, but no more so
> than other Christians.


There are doctrinal reasons why many people in the Episcopal and other
churches believe that to be wrong. You don't get to revise the
doctrine merely for your convenience, and you don't get to take a
cafeteria approach to church doctrine.


> That has happened over the
> last several decades in places like California and New
> Hampshire In places like Africa, where gays are still
> invisible in many places,


Here we go again: white liberal westerners disparaging third world
people of color.


Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 07:32 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >
>> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
>> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?

>>
>> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,

>
>You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
>allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
>them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.


Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.

>It makes them "better pets"


No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.

<restore>
>> or,
>> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,

<end restore>
>> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down

>
>Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.


You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
is being sought.

>> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.

>
>The bird sees Karen as it's mate


No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
hand.

>and many birds are strictly
>monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.


A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
a person's hand.

>Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".


Yes, you can.

> They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> causing serious intestinal problems.


Then give it a soft rubber one.

>>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
>>it to masturbate on her hand.

>
>What a prude!


So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
masturbate on I would be a prude? If he continually tried
to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
be a prude?

>Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".


It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
as its sexual partner. Clearly, you are not fit to keep
animals either, because like Karen you're willing to
debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 07:39 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts
> as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
> > chico chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >> pearl wrote:

> >
> >
> >>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.

> >
> >
> >> I approve of agriculture;

> >
> >
> > You approve of people "diddling" animals

>
> No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> artificial insemination.


There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female. I'm sure
you and wifey-poo know all about lack of female sexual gratification.
>
> > as long as people can make money doing it.

>
> Making money is moral.


"Making money" by any means is not moral. Making money by
appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.

> Animal agriculture is moral.


Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual
behaviors are not moral. Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen,
mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young
and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed
these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint. This is
profoundly immoral and the surge of consumers seeking humanely farmed
animal products is testament to the fact that a growing number of
humans recognize it as such.

You're lagging behind again, Ball. But then, that's the story of your
life, no?

> Artificial insemination of livestock animals is not
> "diddling" them, and has no sexual gratification
> dimension to it.


A bull's sperm cannot be harvested without sexual release. Ejaculation
IS sexual gratification, Bum****. Are you going to pretend you are not
"gratified" when you jerk-off into a scented Puff?.

>You know this - you are choosing to
> misrepresent the facts.


Back atcha.

>Deliberate misrepresentation
> is unethical.


Who knows this better than you?>
>
> > You have no moral
> > objection to what you are calling "bestiality".

>
> Yes, he does.


The act of forcible sexual manipulation of animals is the same whether
the pleasure experienced by the human participant is borne of profit or
sex.

> > This is because you have no concern for the animals
> > themselves.

>
> The concern is for humans.


For an extremely limited number of humans, those that make their living
by raising and killing animals.

It's not as if animals will not breed on their own. What they won't do
is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select
mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the
species.
>
> >> I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals

> >
> > Which does not include me.

>
> It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.


Are you blaming the cockatiel for initiating the activity?


Leif Erikson[_2_] 17-08-2006 07:49 PM

Question for Karen Winter, who used to post at 'rat' and now posts as <bleagh> 'glorfindel'
 
lead-pipe-wielding Mary Huber blabbered:
> Leif Erikson wrote:
> > Karen Winter, who used to post as 'rat' and now posts
> > as <bleagh> 'glorfindel', deliberately misrepresented:
> > > chico chupacabra wrote:
> > >
> > >> pearl wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
> > >
> > >
> > >> I approve of agriculture;
> > >
> > >
> > > You approve of people "diddling" animals

> >
> > No. There's no sexual gratification dimension to
> > artificial insemination.

>
> There is certainly no sexual gratification for the female.


So what? What an inane comment! Why would anyone care about sexual
gratification in livestock?


> > > as long as people can make money doing it.

> >
> > Making money is moral.

>
> "Making money" by any means is not moral.


Straw man: no one defended making money by any means conceivable.


> Making money by
> appropriating the life and death of another creature is not moral.


It most certainly is.


>
> > Animal agriculture is moral.

>
> Husbandry pratices which prevent an animal from engaging in instinctual
> behaviors are not moral.


Not necessarily.


> Chickens can't scratch, ducks can't preen,
> mink can't swim, pigs can't build nests, cows can't nurse their young
> and on and on. Thousands of years of domestication have not destroyed
> these animals instincts, so we must prevent them by restraint.


Which is not inherently immoral.

For the most part, it isn't by restraint; it's by removal.


> This is profoundly immoral


ipse dixit; also based on nothing more than your hyper-emotionalism.


> > Artificial insemination of livestock animals is not
> > "diddling" them, and has no sexual gratification
> > dimension to it.

>
> A bull's sperm cannot be harvested without sexual release. Ejaculation
> IS sexual gratification, Bum****.


No.


> >You know this - you are choosing to
> > misrepresent the facts.

>
> Back atcha.


You missed, as usual.


> >Deliberate misrepresentation
> > is unethical.

>
> Who knows this


Right thinking people like me.


> > > You have no moral
> > > objection to what you are calling "bestiality".

> >
> > Yes, he does.

>
> The act of forcible sexual manipulation of animals is the same whether


false


> > > This is because you have no concern for the animals
> > > themselves.

> >
> > The concern is for humans.

>
> For an extremely limited number of humans,


No - for consumers who have greater access to more nutrition at lower
cost.


> It's not as if animals will not breed on their own.


They don't breed enough. There is nothing immoral about humans
exercising control over livestock animals' breeding. In fact, that's
pretty much the definition of modern livestock.


> What they won't do
> is birth offspring in rapid succession. What they won't do is select
> mates according to characteristics more uselful to man than to the
> species.


We are morally justified in promoting our interests by selectively
breeding livestock.


> > >> I disapprove of humans getting their jollies by sexually abusing animals
> > >
> > > Which does not include me.

> >
> > It *does* include you, along with your cockatiel.

>
> Are you blaming the cockatiel for initiating the activity?


No, I'm blaming Karen for indecently engaging in it at all.


[email protected][_1_] 17-08-2006 08:17 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 

Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:


> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.

>
> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.


It goes byond a bond, it is total identification. An animal that has
been prevented from sociializing with members of its own species sees
its human caregiver as one its own. In this context, sexual overtures
towards the caregiver is understandable and predictable.
>
> >It makes them "better pets"

>
> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.


Well, yeah. That's why hand-rearing young birds. along with a
multitude of other things we force upon "pets" of all species, is
morally repugnant.
>
> <restore>
> >> or,
> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,

> <end restore>
> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down

> >
> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.

>
> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,


I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
sexual arousal. The bird is self-aroused because of an innate sexual
drive in mature birds. Any handling will prompt sexual activity. This
behavior usually waxes and wanes seasonally. Do you have any personal
experience with birds? Because you act as if you don't know the first
thing about bird behavior.

> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.
>
> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.

> >
> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate

>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.


No, it sees Karen as its mate.

> >and many birds are strictly
> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.

>
> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> a person's hand.


> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".

>
> Yes, you can.


Not if you care about the health of the bird. Clearly, you consider a
companion bird's physical and mental health of no importance.
>
> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> > causing serious intestinal problems.

>
> Then give it a soft rubber one.


Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
flexibility.
>
> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >>it to masturbate on her hand.

> >
> >What a prude!

>
> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> masturbate on I would be a prude?


If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
him some means of sexual release. I would hope you aren't stupid
enough to be actively breeding him.

If you did allow him to ejaculate on your leg, I wouldn't say you were
sexually abusing him.

> If he continually tried
> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> be a prude?


Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
advances.

If the cockatiel was biting Karen's arm while he rubbed on her hand, I
imagine she would put an end to the session.
>
> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".

>
> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> as its sexual partner.


According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,


Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
shovel has any value?

> because like Karen you're willing to
> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.


You thick-headed junkie, neither Karen nor I are interested in making
any animals "better pets". I am opposed to the very existence of pets
as a category of animals without domain over their own lives.


chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 08:27 PM

Question for Karen Winter
 
Right on cue, Karen Winter snipped to focus on the least relevant
point and to whine about being ***:

> <snip>


Why did you snip everything of importance, Karen?

> > questions about my
> > motivations, e.g., "What denomination are you and why are you here?"

>
> That's reasonable. I don't know why you are so hostile to
> *** people in the church


I'm not hostile to anyone who wants to go to church. I have suspicions
about, concern for, and a bit of antipathy for those who demand the
church accept and embrace them on their own terms. It's not radical to
think that men should only marry women instead of each other -- that's
pretty conventional. It IS radical to suggest 2000+ years of history
and tradition are wrong, that sin isn't sin, and that your alternative
lifestyle -- YOURS OF ALL PEOPLE! -- is the moral equivalent of anyone
else's. It's not.

> unless I know what religious group you came from.


You needn't know which particular one because you've already made up
your mind:

> A lot of it is cultural ignorance
> or literalist Biblical interpretation.


Is that the case at St Bede's and Church of the Holy Faith? Are they
literalists? Cultural ignorants? Or are they just simple Christians
trying to make sense of church-wreckers like you?

> People who come
> from denominations with a different approach to studying
> the Bible, like classical Anglicans/Episcopalians, are
> often more open to other interpretations.


How many interpretations can you put on Romans 16:17? How many for any
of the other passages that tell the church how to handle schismatics
and heretics?

> And a lot of it comes from *** people being more visible.


How the hell would I know if someone sitting next to me at church is
a homosexual unless he told me? How would I know that he wants to cause
schism and harm by forcing a radical agenda over and against the
established order in the church?

You made yourself visible, Karen, and it wasn't because you're ***.

> Derek couldn't have done what he did to us while we were
> in California, because people in the church there knew us.


He could've, and I'm willing to bet the members of your congregation in
Antioch would've been every bit as concerned about your posts as the
people in Santa Fe have been. People are funny like that, especially
about their children. You may think their children are old enough to
decide with whom to have sex; they likely disagree and don't want your
influence anywhere near them.

You say they "knew" you in Antioch, but did they really? Did they know
you were an open advocate of bestiality and pedophilia? Did they know
Sylvia wrote such vile stuff about children?

I doubt they knew you at all.

> We had friends


You had them in Santa Fe, too. They now know what kind of person you
are. They'd prefer not to have you around their kids. And it has
nothing to do with your being ***. It has to do with your being an
apologist for things that harm children, and with Sylvia's public
displays of hatred for children and those who have them.

> I'd been involved in altar guild and
> licensed by the bishop as a Lay Eucharistic Minister,
> been sponsored for Cursillo and attended, given altar
> vessels and other things to my parish, and so on.


Did they know that you'd introduce your son to your pedophile
*FRIENDS*? Did they know you were attending NAMBLA meetings and
receiving their newsletter? Did they know you were an advocate for
those who have sex with animals?

> People would have known what Derek claimed was ridiculous.


Derek, as far as I know, didn't make claims. He merely made your vicar
aware of your posts in defense of things that most people will not
accept. It wasn't a list of posts about your homosexuality, it was
about your ARDENT defense of pedophilia and bestiality in YOUR own
words.

> But here, no one knew us very well


They read your and Sylvia's posts and now they indeed know you well.

> and they were willing
> to accept Derek's wild accusations at face value.


It's not a "wild accusation" to forward your posts, or links to them,
to show what matters most to you.

> I think
> that was why he waited to attack us until we moved.


He didn't attack you. He informed the clergy and staff at the
congregations where you and Sylvia were attending of your posting
history and the kinds of things you support and defend.

> The same is true of *** people in general.


Derek, to my knowledge, didn't make a deal of your homosexuality, but
rather your chronic defense of pedophilia and bestiality. Most
congregations -- even in the "fundamentalist" literalist churches you
(and *I*) have a problem with -- can deal with the homosexuality issue;
even far out liberal ones will have issues with pedophiles and those
who embrace that subject the way you have, particularly when they have
children in the congregation.

<...>

I dealt with your whining. Now deal with the more salient points I
raised:

---------- RESTORE -----------
> If you are
> Episcopalian, then you know there are people of
> good will and learning on both sides of the
> issues.


I know that you're not one of them. I've read your posts and observed
your contentious spirit regarding the division in your church. You've
admitted to being part of it for a long time. You've disrespectfully
likened your depraved cause to other more noble causes. You've been
very "in-your-face" about it in our discussions. You're not a person of
good will, Karen.

> If you are not, why should those issues
> concern you?


Because the issues transcend all of Christianity. Episcopal Christians
shouldn't fear the onslaught of radical change you schismatics have
been pushing. But it's not enough for you to screw up your own
denomination -- the radicals want to hijack other ones, too. You see it
in PCUSA and UMC. Those church bodies are almost as divided as yours is
now, and I hope they can deal with it more peaceably than people like
you have in yours.

> Yes, I have strong opinions on some
> of the issues,


Strong enough to cause all this division in the first place.

> but I am tired of the fighting,


Hint: the traditionalists didn't go looking for one. YOU did.

> and I don't want to be involved in it any more


Then why did you start it? Why did you get involved? Why are you on
written record with various groups on the side of radical change? You
made yourself part of the division. You've done nothing to heal it,
only to exacerbate it.

> until the whole thing is settled one way or the
> other. I want to focus on God.


IOW, you're too weary to start what you finished. Maybe you need to
take another look at yourself, your church, and the whole nature of the
controversy. I admit I'm on the outside of it. I can see from where I
am that it's not doing anyone any good, not even the radicals when they
"win," because it divides your church even further -- past the point of
no return.

You've been a very willing party to the alienation of simple
Christians, Karen -- people with a simple faith who only want to go to
church to worship their God. You say that's what you want, but you
wouldn't allow them the same comfort in their pews that you seek for
yourself. They weren't asking YOU to change. You were demanding THEY
change. They didn't go looking for fights. You brought it to them. When
you brought it to them, you brought it to the global fellowship of
Anglicans. And when you did that, you brought it to the wider body of
believers.

Is it worth it, Karen? Is it worth telling people just a couple months
ago "don't let the door hit you on the way out" when traditionalists
said they couldn't support this travesty? Is it worth being chastised
by the African bishops yours have repeatedly alienated? Is it worth
watching congregations leave your fold? Is it worth the grief and
confusion you've caused little old ladies who wonder just what their
church really stands for anymore?

You got what you wanted. Go ahead and enjoy it. Nobody else is.
------ END RESTORE -----------

chico chupacabra 17-08-2006 08:30 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
Contrary Mary wrote:

> chico chupacabra wrote:
> > Karen Winter, bird diddler ordinaire, wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> You approve of people 'diddling' large animals.
> > >
> > > >>> I approve of agriculture;
> > >
> > > >> You approve of
> > >
> > > "diddling" animals

> >
> > No, I object to your "regular" diddling of small animals. You
> > weren't engaged in agriculture or any pursuit other than jacking
> > off a little animal.

>
> Companion birds often grow to identify with their human caregivers.


Does that give Karen the right to diddle it?

> Karen's fortunate she's the love object of a cockatiel and not a
> macaw. That can get pretty intense.


I'll have to defer to your experience.

Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 08:57 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:


<restore>
>> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
>> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?

>>
>> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,

<end restore>

>> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
>> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
>> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.

>>
>> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
>> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.

>
>It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.


No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
animal or bird should never include debasing it by availing
yourself as its sexual partner.

>> >It makes them "better pets"

>>
>> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
>> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.

>
>Well, yeah.


Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
animal.

>> <restore>
>> >> or,
>> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,

>> <end restore>
>> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
>> >
>> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.

>>
>> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
>> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,

>
>I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
>sexual arousal.


I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
is being sought.
..
>> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
>> >
>> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate

>>
>> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
>> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
>> hand.

>
>No, it sees Karen as its mate.


No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
hand.

>> >and many birds are strictly
>> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.

>>
>> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
>> a person's hand.


Well?

>> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".

>>
>> Yes, you can.

>
>Not if you care about the health of the bird.


A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.

>> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
>> > causing serious intestinal problems.

>>
>> Then give it a soft rubber one.

>
>Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
>flexibility.


No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.

>> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
>> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
>> >
>> >What a prude!

>>
>> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
>> masturbate on I would be a prude?

>
>If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
>him some means of sexual release.


Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
him and yourself.

>> If he continually tried
>> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
>> be a prude?

>
>Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
>but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
>possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
>advances.


Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
continually tried to mount your face, according to your
perverted standards you would have no option but to
oblige him.

>> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".

>>
>> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
>> as its sexual partner.

>
>According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.


She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
him and herself.

>> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,

>
>Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
>shovel has any value?


From the same source which made that accusation;

9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
a fake you stupid ******s.
http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o

tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.

>> because like Karen you're willing to
>> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
>> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

>
>You thick-headed junkie,


That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
smoke cigarettes these days.

>neither Karen nor I are interested in making
>any animals "better pets".


Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
dirty little animal-fiddler.

Leif Erikson[_2_] 17-08-2006 09:02 PM

Question for Karen Winter and other Episcopalians
 
Derek wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2006 12:17:56 -0700, " > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2006 10:16:16 -0700, " > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Aug 2006 08:54:28 -0700, " > wrote:

>
> <restore>
> >> >What should she do with the sexually aroused cockatiel? Fling it
> >> >against the wall? Shake it hard? Throw it back in its lonely cage?
> >>
> >> Respect its animal status and get it an appropriate mate,

> <end restore>
>
> >> >You don't get it. The reason humans hand-rear young birds, not
> >> >allowing females to nest and nurture their own offspring, is to get
> >> >them to bond with humans INSTEAD OF other birds.
> >>
> >> Bonding with an animal or bird should never include debasing
> >> it by availing yourself as its sexual partner.

> >
> >It goes byond a bond, it is total identification.

>
> No, you have no way of knowing that, and bonding with an
> animal or bird should never include debasing it


....nor the pet owner himself...

> by availing
> yourself as its sexual partner.
>
> >> >It makes them "better pets"
> >>
> >> No, it does not. And besides, making them "better pets" isn't
> >> in the animals' best interests; it's in the human's best interests.

> >
> >Well, yeah.

>
> Then it's clear that YOUR interests come before the
> animals' interests. You want to make them "better pets"
> for you, even if that interest debases both you and the
> animal.
>
> >> <restore>
> >> >> or,
> >> >> failing that, instead of following your abusive alternatives,
> >> <end restore>
> >> >> gently put it back in its cage where it can either calm down
> >> >
> >> >Sexual instincts dont just go away, Derek.
> >>
> >> You wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> >> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird,

> >
> >I don't believe Karen claimed to manipulate the bird into a state of
> >sexual arousal.

>
> I didn't claim that she did. That little dodge out of the way,
> you wasn't talking about sexual instincts - you was talking
> about what one should do with a sexually aroused bird, and
> yes, sexual arousal does go away while a suitable alternative
> is being sought.
> .
> >> >> or do what it wants to do on a soft toy.
> >> >
> >> >The bird sees Karen as it's mate
> >>
> >> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> >> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> >> hand.

> >
> >No, it sees Karen as its mate.

>
> No, it sees Karen's hand as something easy to masturbate
> on, and a soft toy can easily be substituted for Karen's
> hand.
>
> >> >and many birds are strictly
> >> >monogamous. It would have no impulse to treat a toy as a mate.
> >>
> >> A bird will masturbate on a soft toy just as readily as on
> >> a person's hand.

>
> Well?
>
> >> >Besides, you can't give birds "soft toys".
> >>
> >> Yes, you can.

> >
> >Not if you care about the health of the bird.

>
> A bird can masturbate on a soft rubber toy just as easily
> as on Karen's hand without any harm to the bird at all.
>
> >> > They would immediately rip it apart and eat the fibers
> >> > causing serious intestinal problems.
> >>
> >> Then give it a soft rubber one.

> >
> >Same thing. Birds beaks are strong. They can tear apart anything with
> >flexibility.

>
> No, they cannot tear apart a strong rubber toy.
>
> >> >>What she shouldn't do is debase it or herself by allowing
> >> >>it to masturbate on her hand.
> >> >
> >> >What a prude!
> >>
> >> So, if I were to distract my labrador from using my leg to
> >> masturbate on I would be a prude?

> >
> >If you have an intact male labrador it would be cruel not to provide
> >him some means of sexual release.

>
> Then you would allow a dog to masturbate on you, debasing
> him and yourself.
>
> >> If he continually tried
> >> to mount my face and I refused to suck his dick, I would
> >> be a prude?

> >
> >Can't imagine any living being wanting to get that close to your face,
> >but since it sounds as if that experience would be uncomfortable and
> >possibly dangerous, you would be well within your rights to refuse his
> >advances.

>
> Sucking off a dog wouldn't physically harm him, and if he
> continually tried to mount your face, according to your
> perverted standards you would have no option but to
> oblige him.
>
> >> >Sexual behavior in animals is not "debasing".
> >>
> >> It is when that sexual behaviour includes availing oneself
> >> as its sexual partner.

> >
> >According to Karen, she did not initiate sexual contact.

>
> She availed herself as his sexual partner, thereby debasing
> him and herself.
>
> >> Clearly, you are not fit to keep animals either,

> >
> >Like the opinion of a man who beheads mewling kittens with a garden
> >shovel has any value?

>
> From the same source which made that accusation;
>
> 9) He's never abused animals. This part of my story was obviously
> a fake you stupid ******s.
> http://tinyurl.com/hwm4o
>
> tut tut tut. You've got to do better than that, Mary.
>
> >> because like Karen you're willing to
> >> debase yourself and the animal in the hope that it will
> >> make it a *better pet* for you, you dirty little animal-fiddler.

> >
> >You thick-headed junkie,

>
> That little outburst isn't going to help you, either. I don't even
> smoke cigarettes these days.
>
> >neither Karen nor I are interested in making
> >any animals "better pets".

>
> Yes, you are. You admitted it further up this thread, you
> dirty little animal-fiddler.




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter