Sinful Votes?

Science > Abortion > Sinful Votes?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"papa jack"
Date:	24 May 2004 04:31:24 PM
Object:	Sinful Votes?

On May 23, 2004. ABC News posted an article by Brian Rooney
titled: "Sinful Votes? Bishop: No Communion for Catholics Who
Choose Abortion, Gay Marriage Candidates." Go to:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/bishop_040523-1.html
_________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"While several bishops have said Catholic politicians who support
abortion rights — including presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry,
D-Mass. — should not receive communion, one bishop is taking
it a step further, saying the same should be true for Catholics who
vote for them.
"Voting for politicians who support such un-Catholic practices as
abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and stem-cell research is essen-
tially a sin, according to Bishop Michael Sheridan, head of Color-
ado's second-largest diocese in Colorado Springs.
"In a pastoral letter dated May 5, Sheridan said Catholics who vote
for such candidates should not take Holy Communion....
[...]
_________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
The entire text of the pastoral letter is quoted below. Especially
note the 12th paragraph which states:
"Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future
of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the
basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on
the state of marriage. The family - father, mother and child-
ren - reflects the nature of God Himself, who is a communion
of selfless and self-giving love. For this reason marriage and
family life cannot be whatever we want them to be. They are
only and always as God has created them. As in the matter
of abortion, any Catholic politician who would promote so-
called "same-sex marriage" and any Catholic who would vote
for that political candidate place themselves outside the full
communion of the Church and may not receive Holy Com-
munion until they have recanted their positions and been
reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance."
Go to:
http://www.diocesecs.org/bishopsOffice/pastoralLetter1.htm
A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF
COLORADO SPRINGS ON THE DUTIES OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND VOTERS

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
This coming November we Americans will participate in one of the
most important national elections in recent history. The president,
senators and congressmen who are placed in office by our votes will
serve at a time in which issues that are critical to the very survival
of our civilization will be at the top of the political agenda. As we
prepare for these elections I consider it my duty as your bishop to
write to you about these matters so that you might go to the polls
this fall with a well-informed conscience.
The Church teaches that "man has the right to act in conscience and
in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions." (1) Often we
hear people claim that they are making decisions in accord with
conscience even when those decisions defy the natural law and the
revealed teachings of Jesus Christ. This is because of a widespread
misunderstanding of the very meaning of conscience. For many,
conscience is no more than personal preference or even a vague sense
or feeling that something is right or wrong, often based on
information drawn from sources that have nothing to do with the law of
God.
The right judgment of conscience is not a matter of personal
preference nor has it anything to do with feelings. It has only to do
with objective truth. "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment
enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It
formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the
true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of
conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to
negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment
and to reject authoritative teachings." (2)
All people have a grave obligation to form their consciences by
adhering to the truth, precisely as that truth is found in the natural
law and in the revelation of God. As Catholics we have the further
obligation to give assent to the doctrinal and moral teachings of the
Church because "to the Church belongs the right always and everywhere
to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social
order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that
they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the
salvation of souls." (3) In other words, as people who profess the
Catholic faith, we must "have the mind of Christ" in every judgment
and act.
Among the many distortions and misrepresentations that prevail in the
current debates about the relationship between religion and the social
order (politics) is the assertion that faith and politics are to be
kept separated. This, apparently, is based upon the American doctrine
of the separation of church and state. In fact, the wall that
separates church and state is the safeguard against both the
establishment of a state religion and the imposition of sectarian
religious beliefs and practices, such as particular denominational
forms of worship or theological tenets. In no way does the American
doctrine of separation of church and state even suggest that the
well-formed consciences of religious people should not be brought to
bear on their political choices.
The Second Vatican Council was abundantly clear on this matter. "Nor,
on the contrary, are they any less wide of the mark who think that
religion consists in acts of worship alone and in the discharge of
certain moral obligations, and who imagine they can plunge themselves
into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are
altogether divorced from the religious life. This split between the
faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted
among the more serious errors of our age. Long since, the Prophets of
the Old Testament fought vehemently against this scandal and even more
so did Jesus Christ Himself in the New Testament threaten it with
grave punishments. Therefore, let there be no false opposition between
professional and social activities on the one part, and religious life
on the other." (4)
When Catholics are elected to public office or when Catholics go to
the polls to vote, they take their consciences with them. Pope John
Paul II has consistently taught this as, for example, when he said
that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave
and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life. (5)
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared that, "in
this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian
conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an
individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and
morals." (6) Anyone who professes the Catholic faith with his lips
while at the same time publicly supporting legislation or candidates
that defy God's law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his
identity as a Catholic.
In November we will once again have the privilege of exercising our
most precious right as citizens - the right to vote. Our choices will
be made from among an array of candidates who take a variety of
positions with regard to many important issues. In the midst of what
could be a difficult and confusing exercise it is very important to
remember that not all issues are of equal gravity. As men and women of
good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to
preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right
that is "inalienable", and that is the RIGHT TO LIFE. This is the
FIRST right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights.
This is the issue that trumps all other issues.
The November elections will be critical in the battle to restore the
right to life to all citizens, especially the unborn and the elderly
and infirm. As a result of the pro-life efforts of countless Americans
the number of abortions performed in our country is now declining for
the first time since the appalling Supreme Court decision of 1973 that
made it "legal" to kill our children. We cannot allow the progress
that has been made to be reversed by a pro-abortion President, Senate
or House of Representatives. Neither can we permit illicit stem cell
research that makes use of aborted babies. Any movement to promote and
legalize euthanasia must be halted. Our votes have the power to stop
these abominations.
There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians
who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any
form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion
with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who
vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research
or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this
reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those
who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they
have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the
Church in the Sacrament of Penance.
In recent months another issue has reached the level of our
legislatures. It is so-called "samesex marriage." Those who now
promote this deviancy often present it as a human right denied
homosexual persons and thus illegally discriminating against them.
But, in fact, no one has a right to that which flies in the face of
God's own design. Marriage is not an invention of individuals or even
of societies. Rather it is an element of God's creation. It is God who
created us male and female. It is God who joined man and woman so that
they could be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Every
civilization known to mankind has understood marriage as the union of
a man and a woman for the procreation and rearing of children. And yet
now, in 21stcentury America, there are those who would want us to
believe that all people of all times have been mistaken about the true
nature and purpose of marriage. No one can simply redefine marriage to
suit a political or social agenda.
Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future of our
world depends upon the strength of the family, the basic unit of
society. The future of the family depends on the state of marriage.
The family - father, mother and children - reflects the nature of God
Himself, who is a communion of selfless and self-giving love. For this
reason marriage and family life cannot be whatever we want them to be.
They are only and always as God has created them. As in the matter of
abortion, any Catholic politician who would promote so-called
"same-sex marriage" and any Catholic who would vote for that political
candidate place themselves outside the full communion of the Church
and may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their
positions and been reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance.
The Church never directs citizens to vote for any specific
candidate. The Church does, however, have the right and the obligation
to teach clearly and fully the objective truth about the dignity and
rights of the human person. These teachings, in turn, must inform the
consciences of voters. "By its intervention in this area, the Church's
Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the
freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions.
Instead, it intends -- as is its proper function - to instruct and
illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those
involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the
integral promotion of the human person and the common good." (7)
Dear friends in Christ, I exhort you with all my heart to take
courage and proclaim the Gospel of Life to those who will stand for
elected office this fall. It is by your prayers and by your votes that
politicians who are unconditionally pro-life and pro-family will serve
our country. Conversely, if our voices remain silent or if, God
forbid, we vote contrary to our informed consciences, we will see our
country led down a short path to ruin. We want freedom for all, but
there can be no freedom without truth. In the words of our Holy
Father: "When freedom is detached from objective truth it becomes
impossible to establish personal rights on a firm rational basis; and
the ground is laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained
will of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public
authority." (8)
Let us all pray for those politicians who claim to be Catholic yet
continue to oppose the law of God and the rights of persons that, by
the grace of God, they will be converted once again to the full and
authentic articulation and practice of the faith.
Finally, I wish to affirm my brother bishops who have proclaimed the
truth of these critical matters and who have admonished those Catholic
politicians who place themselves at odds with the truth of God. May
that truth which is the foundation of genuine freedom prevail in our
country.
Given at the Chancery on this first day of May 2004, the Feast of
St. Joseph the Worker.

Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan
Bishop of Colorado Springs

Endnotes
(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1782.
(2) ibid., 1783.
(3) ibid., 2032 and Code of Canon Law 747.2.
(4) Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modem World (Gaudium
et spes), 43.
(5) John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium vitae), 73.
(6) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Doctrinal Notes on
Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political
Life", 4.
(7) ibid., 6.
(8) The Gospel of Life, 101.
.

User: "Shawn Hearn"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	24 May 2004 06:47:40 PM

In article <bd9f1f6b.0405241331.3b2bc7cd@posting.google.com>,

(papa jack) wrote:

The RC Church is chock full of hypocritical leaders. These bishops
say nothing about sanctioning Roman Catholic politicians who support the
death penalty. As far as I am concerned, if these church officials
are going to get into the political ring, then their churches should
lose their status as a tax-free non-profit organization since they
are clearly violating the law. Of course officials of the Roman
Catholic Church have a long history of considering themselves to be
above the law, which is why their church is embroiled in so much
litigation involving child molestation.
.

User: "Teresa"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	25 May 2004 06:45:00 PM

Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<srhi-FCF331.19474024052004@news-60.giganews.com>...

In article <bd9f1f6b.0405241331.3b2bc7cd@posting.google.com>,
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

Teresa says: Politicians are apprearing at church services pitching
their political agendas and critisizing the current administration.
In other words they are campaigning in the churches. In March John
Kerry spoke to a congregation at a church in St. Louis-remember his
remark, "The scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother,if
someone says he has faith but doesn not have works?" He was referring
to Bush. He had plenty of other critisizms of the administration in
that speech. Priests and Bishops have an obligation to teach and
frequently remind parishoners what the doctrines of the Catholic
Church are and provide guidence in how to adhere to those doctrines.
They do it all the time, not just during political campaign seasons!
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	25 May 2004 08:54:21 PM

(Teresa) wrote in
news:9b2b4e36.0405251545.1cc03d70@posting.google.com:

Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<srhi-FCF331.19474024052004@news-60.giganews.com>...

In article <bd9f1f6b.0405241331.3b2bc7cd@posting.google.com>,
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

The RC Church is chock full of hypocritical leaders. These bishops
say nothing about sanctioning Roman Catholic politicians who support
the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, if these church officials
are going to get into the political ring, then their churches should
lose their status as a tax-free non-profit organization since they
are clearly violating the law. Of course officials of the Roman
Catholic Church have a long history of considering themselves to be
above the law, which is why their church is embroiled in so much
litigation involving child molestation.

You are right, Teresa. The catholic church practices it's guidance in how
to adhere to their doctrines of pedophilia 365 days a year.
.

User: "papa jack"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	27 May 2004 01:21:45 PM

teresah78758@yahoo.com (Teresa) wrote
in message news:<9b2b4e36.0405251545.1cc03d70@posting.google.com>...

Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

============================================================================

Papa Jack cited:
On May 23, 2004. ABC News posted an article by Brian Rooney
titled: "Sinful Votes? Bishop: No Communion for Catholics Who
Choose Abortion, Gay Marriage Candidates." Go to:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/bishop_040523-1.html
____________________________________________________________________________

Excerpts:

"While several bishops have said Catholic politicians who support
abortion rights ? including presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry,
D-Mass. ? should not receive communion, one bishop is taking
it a step further, saying the same should be true for Catholics who
vote for them.

"Voting for politicians who support such un-Catholic practices as
abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and stem-cell research is essen-
tially a sin, according to Bishop Michael Sheridan, head of Color-
ado's second-largest diocese in Colorado Springs.

"In a pastoral letter dated May 5, Sheridan said Catholics who vote
for such candidates should not take Holy Communion....
[...]

____________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack comments:
The entire text of the pastoral letter is quoted below. Especially
note the 12th paragraph which states:

"Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future
of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the
basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on
the state of marriage. The family - father, mother and child-
ren - reflects the nature of God Himself, who is a communion
of selfless and self-giving love. For this reason marriage and
family life cannot be whatever we want them to be. They are
only and always as God has created them. As in the matter
of abortion, any Catholic politician who would promote so-
called "same-sex marriage" and any Catholic who would vote
for that political candidate place themselves outside the full
communion of the Church and may not receive Holy Com-
munion until they have recanted their positions and been
reconciled by the Sacrament of Penance."

Go to:

http://www.diocesecs.org/bishopsOffice/pastoralLetter1.htm

A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF
COLORADO SPRINGS ON THE DUTIES OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND VOTERS

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

This coming November we Americans will participate in one of the
most important national elections in recent history. The president,
senators and congressmen who are placed in office by our votes will
serve at a time in which issues that are critical to the very survival
of our civilization will be at the top of the political agenda. As we
prepare for these elections I consider it my duty as your bishop to
write to you about these matters so that you might go to the polls
this fall with a well-informed conscience.

============================================================================

Shawn Hearn wrote:
The RC Church is chock full of hypocritical leaders. These bishops
say nothing about sanctioning Roman Catholic politicians who support the
death penalty. As far as I am concerned, if these church officials
are going to get into the political ring, then their churches should
lose their status as a tax-free non-profit organization since they
are clearly violating the law. Of course officials of the Roman
Catholic Church have a long history of considering themselves to be
above the law, which is why their church is embroiled in so much
litigation involving child molestation.

============================================================================

Teresa says:
Politicians are apprearing at church services pitching their
political agendas and critisizing the current administration.
In other words they are campaigning in the churches. In March
John Kerry spoke to a congregation at a church in St. Louis -
remember his remark, "The scriptures say, what does it profit,
my brother,if someone says he has faith but doesn not have
works?" He was referring to Bush. He had plenty of other
critisizms of the administration in that speech. Priests and
Bishops have an obligation to teach and frequently remind
parishoners what the doctrines of the Catholic Church are
and provide guidence in how to adhere to those doctrines.
They do it all the time, not just during political campaign
seasons!

============================================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Good point, Teresa. However, you logic will have little
or no impact of folks like Shawn. He can be happy that
a Democrat uses a Catholic Church for a clearly political
speech -- but, jump up and down with anger over what he
considers the "illegal" speech of a Catolic Bishop who
is trying to teach the public about Catholic beliefs
on abortion. I know it's difficult to believe, but
Shawn really doesn't see the logical contradictions in
his words.
Thanks for considering my point of view.
.

User: "Poemosophi"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	04 Jun 2004 02:23:57 PM

(papa jack) wrote in message news:<bd9f1f6b.0405271021.409a0f94@posting.google.com>...

teresah78758@yahoo.com (Teresa) wrote
in message news:<9b2b4e36.0405251545.1cc03d70@posting.google.com>...

Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

(papa jack) wrote:

============================================================================

Papa Jack cited:
On May 23, 2004. ABC News posted an article by Brian Rooney
titled: "Sinful Votes? Bishop: No Communion for Catholics Who
Choose Abortion, Gay Marriage Candidates." Go to:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/bishop_040523-1.html
____________________________________________________________________________

Excerpts:

"In a pastoral letter dated May 5, Sheridan said Catholics who vote
for such candidates should not take Holy Communion....
[...]

____________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack comments:
The entire text of the pastoral letter is quoted below. Especially
note the 12th paragraph which states:

Go to:

http://www.diocesecs.org/bishopsOffice/pastoralLetter1.htm

A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL OF THE DIOCESE OF
COLORADO SPRINGS ON THE DUTIES OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS AND VOTERS

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

============================================================================

Teresa says:
Politicians are apprearing at church services pitching their
political agendas and critisizing the current administration.
In other words they are campaigning in the churches. In March
John Kerry spoke to a congregation at a church in St. Louis -
remember his remark, "The scriptures say, what does it profit,
my brother,if someone says he has faith but doesn not have
works?" He was referring to Bush. He had plenty of other
critisizms of the administration in that speech. Priests and
Bishops have an obligation to teach and frequently remind
parishoners what the doctrines of the Catholic Church are
and provide guidence in how to adhere to those doctrines.
They do it all the time, not just during political campaign
seasons!

Papa Jack, I just read your thread today -
here's another shot against the prochoicers!
Poemosophi writes to the Denver D.A. :
Communications Director
Denver DA's Office
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. 801
Denver, Colorado 80202
-----Original Message-----
From: Poemosophi [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:12 AM
To: Info
Subject: ABC Nightline segment (5-17-04)
TO: Bill Ritter, Jr. (Denver District Attorney)
RE: Statement about Church tax-exempt status

Sir,
The following is a statement you made that has caught my interest:
"The Church is a charitable organization. They have a tax-exempt
status. If there's too much political activity that were to go on,
they could risk loosing that. So they certainly can't tell people how
to vote as it pertains to specific candidates."

What constitutes 'too much political activity'?
Does the State actually think it can control Religion?
What about the Right of Freedom of Speech?
How do you explain the separation of Church and State?
Why does the State believe it can tell Churches what to do, but not
allow the Church to reciprocate likewise?
If the selling of human body parts is illegal, then why do you join
with a political party that advocates the underground selling of
Aborted-Baby body parts? You are a D.A., so how can you turn a blind
eye to such activity?

I think the State is walking a fine line between the People allowing
it to have authority and the People taking that authority away?

Answer these questions if you will...

<snip my address>
----------
Returned comment from the D.A. office:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns on
this important issue. I will ensure that District Attorney Ritter
receives and reviews your email message, although with the volume of
correspondence I do not know if he will be able to reply directly.
---------
If you want proof then ask 'em!
.

User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	05 Jun 2004 08:31:03 AM

(Poemosophi) writes:

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote in message news:<bd9f1f6b.0405271021.409a0f94@posting.google.com>...

[...]

Good point, Teresa. However, you logic will have little
or no impact of folks like Shawn. He can be happy that
a Democrat uses a Catholic Church for a clearly political
speech -- but, jump up and down with anger over what he
considers the "illegal" speech of a Catolic Bishop who
is trying to teach the public about Catholic beliefs
on abortion. I know it's difficult to believe, but
Shawn really doesn't see the logical contradictions in
his words.

Thanks for considering my point of view.

Papa Jack, I just read your thread today -
here's another shot against the prochoicers!
Poemosophi writes to the Denver D.A. :

Communications Director
Denver DA's Office
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. 801
Denver, Colorado 80202

-----Original Message-----
From: Poemosophi [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:12 AM
To: Info
Subject: ABC Nightline segment (5-17-04)
TO: Bill Ritter, Jr. (Denver District Attorney)
RE: Statement about Church tax-exempt status
Sir,
The following is a statement you made that has caught my interest:
"The Church is a charitable organization. They have a tax-exempt
status. If there's too much political activity that were to go on,
they could risk loosing that. So they certainly can't tell people how
to vote as it pertains to specific candidates."

What constitutes 'too much political activity'?
Does the State actually think it can control Religion?
What about the Right of Freedom of Speech?
How do you explain the separation of Church and State?
Why does the State believe it can tell Churches what to do, but not
allow the Church to reciprocate likewise?
If the selling of human body parts is illegal, then why do you join
with a political party that advocates the underground selling of
Aborted-Baby body parts? You are a D.A., so how can you turn a blind
eye to such activity?

I think the State is walking a fine line between the People allowing
it to have authority and the People taking that authority away?
Answer these questions if you will...
Returned comment from the D.A. office:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns on
this important issue. I will ensure that District Attorney Ritter
receives and reviews your email message, although with the volume of
correspondence I do not know if he will be able to reply directly.
If you want proof then ask 'em!

So? You got a form-letter response to your bloody-shirt waving, James. For
all you know, the Denver County DA and his staff are laughing their butts off
at your presumptions of arrogance.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2003-04 Houston Aeros)
.

User: "Lawrence E. McKnight"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	04 Jun 2004 06:56:44 PM

On 4 Jun 2004 12:23:57 -0700,

(Poemosophi)
wrote:

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote in message news:<bd9f1f6b.0405271021.409a0f94@posting.google.com>...

[snip....

Papa Jack, I just read your thread today -
here's another shot against the prochoicers!

Poemosophi writes to the Denver D.A. :

Communications Director
Denver DA's Office
201 West Colfax Avenue, Dept. 801
Denver, Colorado 80202

-----Original Message-----
From: Poemosophi [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:12 AM
To: Info
Subject: ABC Nightline segment (5-17-04)

TO: Bill Ritter, Jr. (Denver District Attorney)
RE: Statement about Church tax-exempt status

Sir,
The following is a statement you made that has caught my interest:
"The Church is a charitable organization. They have a tax-exempt
status. If there's too much political activity that were to go on,
they could risk loosing that. So they certainly can't tell people how
to vote as it pertains to specific candidates."

What constitutes 'too much political activity'?
Does the State actually think it can control Religion?
What about the Right of Freedom of Speech?
How do you explain the separation of Church and State?
Why does the State believe it can tell Churches what to do, but not
allow the Church to reciprocate likewise?
If the selling of human body parts is illegal, then why do you join
with a political party that advocates the underground selling of
Aborted-Baby body parts? You are a D.A., so how can you turn a blind
eye to such activity?

I think the State is walking a fine line between the People allowing
it to have authority and the People taking that authority away?

Answer these questions if you will...

Ohh, a challenge.

<snip my address>
----------

Returned comment from the D.A. office:

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns on
this important issue. I will ensure that District Attorney Ritter
receives and reviews your email message, although with the volume of
correspondence I do not know if he will be able to reply directly.
---------
If you want proof then ask 'em!

No, that isn't a 'comment' from the DAs office. It is an probably an
autoreply. Although there might be somebody who said 'send the
nutcase reply'. It makes the nutcases feel important, so they will go
bother somebody else.
(Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't tell him... now he will pester the DA for an
answer.)
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	05 Jun 2004 01:32:05 PM

Poemosophi <poemosophi@poemosophi.com> wrote:

Papa Jack, I just read your thread today -
here's another shot against the prochoicers!

LOL!

Poemosophi writes to the Denver D.A. :

And we can see how impressed they were.

-----Original Message-----
From: Poemosophi [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:12 AM

TO: Bill Ritter, Jr. (Denver District Attorney)
RE: Statement about Church tax-exempt status

Sir,
The following is a statement you made that has caught my interest:
"The Church is a charitable organization. They have a tax-exempt
status. If there's too much political activity that were to go on,
they could risk loosing that. So they certainly can't tell people how
to vote as it pertains to specific candidates."

What constitutes 'too much political activity'?

Actively compaining for a politician or for legislation.

Does the State actually think it can control Religion?

There is no attempt to control religion.

What about the Right of Freedom of Speech?

There is no attempt to control free speech.

How do you explain the separation of Church and State?

So you say that the church SHOULD lose its tax exemption?

Why does the State believe it can tell Churches what to do, but not
allow the Church to reciprocate likewise?

Nobody is telling the churches what to do, ditz.

If the selling of human body parts is illegal, then why do you join
with a political party that advocates the underground selling of
Aborted-Baby body parts?

Are you insane?

You are a D.A., so how can you turn a blind
eye to such activity?

I think the State is walking a fine line between the People allowing
it to have authority and the People taking that authority away?

I think you're nuts.

Answer these questions if you will...

<snip my address>
----------

Returned comment from the D.A. office:

A canned auto-reply. BFD.

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns on
this important issue. I will ensure that District Attorney Ritter
receives and reviews your email message, although with the volume of
correspondence I do not know if he will be able to reply directly.
---------

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Paul Anderson"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	24 May 2004 05:43:44 PM

On 24 May 2004 14:31:24 -0700,

(papa jack)
wrote:
.....

The entire text of the pastoral letter is quoted below.

Thoughtful people provide just a link rather than quoting hundreds of
lines.

Especially note the 12th paragraph which states:

"Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future
of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the
basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on
the state of marriage. The family - father, mother and child-
ren - reflects the nature of God Himself.....

OKay.... Noted that the author does not understand that "The family
- father, mother and children" is a recent aberration and will quite
likely disappear within another hundred years.

.... For this reason marriage and
family life cannot be whatever we want them to be.

Then why is the author claiming marriage and family life should be
what he wants? A bit hypocritical, eh?
.

User: "papa jack"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	26 May 2004 07:23:30 PM

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
in message news:<40b279e8.4784941@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

===========================================================================

Papa Jack cited:
On May 23, 2004. ABC News posted an article by Brian Rooney
titled: "Sinful Votes? Bishop: No Communion for Catholics Who
Choose Abortion, Gay Marriage Candidates." Go to:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/bishop_040523-1.html
_________________________________________________________________________

Excerpts:
"While several bishops have said Catholic politicians who support
abortion rights — including presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry,
D-Mass. — should not receive communion, one bishop is taking
it a step further, saying the same should be true for Catholics

who

vote for them.
"Voting for politicians who support such un-Catholic practices as
abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and stem-cell research is

essen-

tially a sin, according to Bishop Michael Sheridan, head of

Color-

ado's second-largest diocese in Colorado Springs.
"In a pastoral letter dated May 5, Sheridan said Catholics who

vote

for such candidates should not take Holy Communion....

[...]
_________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack wrote:
The entire text of the pastoral letter is quoted below.

===========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
Thoughtful people provide just a link rather than quoting
hundreds of lines.

===========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
Why? Please explain why that would be MORE THOOUGHTFUL.
===========================================================================

Papa Jack wrote:
Especially note the 12th paragraph which states:
"Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future
of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the
basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on
the state of marriage. The family - father, mother and child-
ren - reflects the nature of God Himself.....

===========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
OKay.... Noted that the author does not understand that
"The family - father, mother and children" is a recent
aberration and will quite likely disappear within another
hundred years.

===========================================================================
Papa Jack snickered:
That's pretty far out, Coyote. Would you like to
pontificate on why we shouldn't just laugh you
off of talk.abortion as a hopeless kook?
Since when is "father, mother, and children" a
recent aberration? The oldest written record of
a human family would contradict you:
Genesis 4
1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived
and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a
man from the LORD."
2 Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+4&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on
Hmmm -- "father, mother, and children" -- the first family.
===========================================================================

Papa Jack quoted Bishop Michael Sheridan, in part:
... who is a communion of selfless and self-giving
love. For this reason marriage and family life cannot
be whatever we want them to be. [They are only and

always as God has created them.]...
===========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
Then why is the author claiming marriage and family life
should be what he wants? A bit hypocritical, eh?

===========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Not when we reinsert the part you chopped out, Coyote
[i.e., "They are only and always as God has created them."]..
A bit sleazy, eh?
===========================================================================

Papa Jack quoted Bishop Michael Sheridan, in part:
...As in the matter of abortion, any Catholic politician
who would promote so-called "same-sex marriage" and any
Catholic who would vote for that political candidate place
themselves outside the full communion of the Church and
may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted
their positions and been reconciled by the Sacrament of
Penance."

User: "Paul Anderson"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	26 May 2004 09:11:54 PM

On 26 May 2004 17:23:30 -0700,

(papa jack)
wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote ....

Especially note the 12th paragraph which states:

OKay.... Noted that the author does not understand that
"The family - father, mother and children" is a recent
aberration and will quite likely disappear within another
hundred years.

That's pretty far out, Coyote. Would you like to
pontificate on why we shouldn't just laugh you
off of talk.abortion as a hopeless kook?

I don't pontificate. And you appearently have never heard of an
extended family with several generations living together supporting
each other -- which was the norm for thousands of years.
.

User: "papa jack"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	28 May 2004 10:21:22 AM

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
in message news:<40b54d5c.10119389@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote ....

===========================================================================

Papa Jack cited:
On May 23, 2004. ABC News posted an article by Brian Rooney
titled: "Sinful Votes? Bishop: No Communion for Catholics Who
Choose Abortion, Gay Marriage Candidates." Go to:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/bishop_040523-1.html
_________________________________________________________________________

Excerpts:

=======================================================================

Papa Jack commented:
Especially note the 12th paragraph which states:

=======================================================================

Papa Jack
That's pretty far out, Coyote. Would you like to
pontificate on why we shouldn't just laugh you
off of talk.abortion as a hopeless kook?

=======================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
I don't pontificate....

=======================================================================
Papa Jack countered:
According to Merriam Webster, "pontificate" means:
"to speak or express opinions in a pompous or
dogmatic way"
That sure seems to describe you to a tee, Coyote.
=======================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...And you appearently have never heard of an
extended family with several generations living
together supporting each other -- which was the
norm for thousands of years.

=======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
You do streatch to make some inane points, Coyote.
You initially said that Bishop Michael J. Sheridan
"...does not understand that 'The family - father,
mother and children' is a recent aberration and
will quite likely disappear within another hundred
years."
Again, let's refer to Merriam Webster:
"5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally
consisting of two parents rearing their
own or adopted children; also : any of
various social units differing from but
regarded as equivalent to the traditional
family <a single-parent family>
I think you're wrong as usual, Coyote.
BTW, why do you believe the father-mother-children type
family will disappear with antoehr hundred years?

=======================================================================

Papa Jack wrote:
Since when is "father, mother, and children" a
recent aberration? The oldest written record of
a human family would contradict you:
Genesis 4
1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived
and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a
man from the LORD."
2 Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=GEN+4&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on

Hmmm -- "father, mother, and children" -- the first family.

User: "Lawrence E. McKnight"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	28 May 2004 02:38:11 PM

On 28 May 2004 08:21:22 -0700,

(papa jack)
wrote:

Papa Jack countered:
According to Merriam Webster, "pontificate" means:

"to speak or express opinions in a pompous or
dogmatic way"

That sure seems to describe you to a tee, Coyote.

SPROING!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.

User: "Paul Anderson"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	28 May 2004 02:12:55 PM

On 28 May 2004 08:21:22 -0700,

(papa jack)
wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
in message news:<40b54d5c.10119389@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...

Jackson, I know that you love to see your words again and again, but I
delete for a purpose and your claiming that I wrote/quoted all of your
blather is a lie. There is no need for it and it would be
appreciated if you would stop reinserting without noting that it is a
reinsertion.
.....

.....

OKay.... Noted that the author does not understand that
"The family - father, mother and children" is a recent
aberration and will quite likely disappear within another
hundred years.

.....

...And you appearently have never heard of an
extended family with several generations living
together supporting each other -- which was the
norm for thousands of years.

....

Again, let's refer to Merriam Webster:

"5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally
consisting of two parents rearing their
own or adopted children; also : any of
various social units differing from but
regarded as equivalent to the traditional
family <a single-parent family>

I think you're wrong as usual, Coyote.

*SIGH* That is today's definition. Looking at the 1913 Websters' we
find:
Family (Page: 541)
1. The collective body of persons who live in one house, and under one
head or manager; a household, including parents, children, and
servants, and, as the case may be, lodgers or boarders.
As you can see, the definition of a family has changed. A family used
to consist of far more than just the parents and children.

BTW, why do you believe the father-mother-children type
family will disappear with antoehr hundred years?

1. It's not working. 2. It is already changing -- what's the
percentage of children living with a single parent rather than a
married couple?
Families used to stay together, with grandparents, aunts, uncles and
cousins all helping to raise the children. Parents had experienced
help when they needed it. Beginning with the 20th century and a
transportation revolution the family was broken and one piece became
the nuclear family. Parents had no experienced help with the day to
day problems of raising children. Parents raised children who were
not part of the larger group and who did not learn to care and share
with the rest of the family. Those children are now grandparents who
are running around in huge motorhomes, touring the world, enjoying
themselves while their children and grandchildren struggle to get by.
I have no idea where we go from here.
I know that the family of the '50's with mom and dad and the children
was a result of the breakup of the extended family of grandparents
parents and children with aunts uncles and cousins close at hand.
This broken family didn't work and is changing -- in spite of us.
.

User: "papa jack"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	29 May 2004 07:09:07 PM

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
in message news:<40b54d5c.10119389@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack)wrote:

=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
Jackson, I know that you love to see your words again
and again, but I delete for a purpose...

=========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Yep, but your purpose is all too often to take my words out
of context and confuse the readers. That's one of your
primary ways of trying to control the flow of the discussion.
When you delete my words, I review what you delete to see
if the part you delete is part of what's being discussed.
If it is, I reinsert it.
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...and your claiming that I wrote/quoted all of your
blather is a lie....

=========================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
No, it is NOT a lie. In fact, when you use your
"creative" deletions to present my comments chopped
up, it is a sleazy tactic meant to mislead the
readers. Now you have the brass to complain?
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...There is no need for it and it would be
appreciated if you would stop reinserting
without noting that it is a reinsertion.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack countered:
I will continue to do what I think is necessary
to give the readers a clear picture of the flow
of the discussion. If that involves reinserting
my words when you or others delete them, so be it.
QUESTION: Why do you feel a compulsion to chop up
what other folks write before you reply? Don't
reply -- just think about it.
=========================================================================

Papa Jack quotes Bishop Michael J. Sheridan:
Especially note the 12th paragraph which states:
"Once again, we must be clear about this matter. The future
of our world depends upon the strength of the family, the
basic unit of society. The future of the family depends on
the state of marriage. The family - father, mother and child-
ren - reflects the nature of God Himself..... ....

=========================================================================

=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...And you appearently have never heard of an
extended family with several generations living
together supporting each other -- which was the
norm for thousands of years. ...

=========================================================================

Papa Jack laughed:
You do streatch to make some inane points, Coyote.
You initially said that Bishop Michael J. Sheridan
"...does not understand that 'The family - father,
mother and children' is a recent aberration and
will quite likely disappear within another hundred
years."
Again, let's refer to Merriam Webster:

"5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally
consisting of two parents rearing their
own or adopted children; also : any of
various social units differing from but
regarded as equivalent to the traditional
family <a single-parent family>
I think you're wrong as usual, Coyote.

=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
*SIGH* That is today's definition. Looking at the 1913
Websters' we find:
Family (Page: 541)
1. The collective body of persons who live in one house,
and under one head or manager; a household, including
parents, children, and servants, and, as the case may be,
lodgers or boarders.
As you can see, the definition of a family has changed.
A family used to consist of far more than just the parents
and children.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
Ahhh, but you only quoted the part which agreed with you.
What about the following from the SAME dictionary you
quoted:
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=family
"2. The group comprising a husband and wife
and their dependent children, constituting
a fundamental unit in the organization of
society.
The welfare of the family underlies the
welfare of society. H. Spencer."
See why I don't trust your deletions?
******
Then there's MSN Encarta:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861610422
"family:
"1. people living together: a group of people
living together and functioning as a single
household, usually consisting of parents and
their children"
******
Or, the Cammbridge dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27901&dict=CALD
"family
group noun
1 [C or U] a group of people who are related to
each other, such as a mother, a father, and
their children:

A new family has/have moved in next door."
=========================================================================

Papa Jack asked:
BTW, why do you believe the father-mother-children type
family will disappear with antoehr hundred years?

=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
1. It's not working. 2. It is already changing -- what's the
percentage of children living with a single parent rather than a
married couple?
Families used to stay together, with grandparents, aunts, uncles and
cousins all helping to raise the children. Parents had experienced
help when they needed it. Beginning with the 20th century and a
transportation revolution the family was broken and one piece became
the nuclear family. Parents had no experienced help with the day to
day problems of raising children. Parents raised children who were
not part of the larger group and who did not learn to care and share
with the rest of the family. Those children are now grandparents who
are running around in huge motorhomes, touring the world, enjoying
themselves while their children and grandchildren struggle to get by.
I have no idea where we go from here.
I know that the family of the '50's with mom and dad and the children
was a result of the breakup of the extended family of grandparents
parents and children with aunts uncles and cousins close at hand.
This broken family didn't work and is changing -- in spite of us.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
I agree that far too many children are raised in single
parent households. That is bad for the children and
bad for the single parents who must raise them.
However, I don't think it's as bad as you would tell us.
Census reports indicate:
http://www.singleparentcentral.com/factstatcen2.htm
* Of the 102.5 million households in the United
States, 69 percent are family households. The
share of family households fell 10 percentage
points between 1970 and 1990 (from 81 percent
to 71 percent) but has dropped only 2 percentage
points since.

* About half (49 percent) of family households
contain children under 18, down from 56 percent
in 1970.
* The growth of one-parent families is slowing.
They comprise 27 percent of family households
with children, up from 24 percent in 1990 and
11 percent in 1970.

* The average U.S. family household consists of
3.18 people,...
History teaches us that large societies tend to swing
back and forth like a pendalum -- first, strictly moral
and then over to the more liberal side. Actually, most
of history has that pendalum somewhere between the
extremes.
.

User: "papa jack"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	01 Jun 2004 01:56:39 PM

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
in message news:<40b54d5c.10119389@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack)wrote:

=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
Jackson, I know that you love to see your words again
and again, but I delete for a purpose...

=========================================================================

Papa Jack replied:
Yep, but your purpose is all too often to take my words out
of context and confuse the readers. That's one of your
primary ways of trying to control the flow of the discussion.
When you delete my words, I review what you delete to see
if the part you delete is part of what's being discussed.
If it is, I reinsert it.

=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...and your claiming that I wrote/quoted all of your
blather is a lie....

=========================================================================

Papa Jack corrected:
No, it is NOT a lie. In fact, when you use your
"creative" deletions to present my comments chopped
up, it is a sleazy tactic meant to mislead the
readers. Now you have the brass to complain?

=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
And again you lie about me.
I do not do "creative" deletions. I trim down to the part I am
replying to. That's all. I don't care to scroll thru 200 lines of
old material and I doubt other do either. I am not the one who is
trying to mislead:

=========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
That is SOOOOO lame.
Of course you are definitely trying to mislead, Coyote.
It should be obvious to anyone who pays any attention
to what you chose to delete.
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
I quote a 1913 dictionary to show that "family" used to
mean more than just husband+wife+children....

=========================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
No, Coyote -- what you did was quote ONE section of
the dictionary definition (as I showed below). You
tried your best to mislead the readers by stating
that that was actually what a "family" was in 1913.
What you SELECTIVELY DELETED from the 1913 dictionary:

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=family

"2. The group comprising a husband and wife
and their dependent children, constituting
a fundamental unit in the organization of
society.

The welfare of the family underlies the
welfare of society. H. Spencer."
That's approximately the same as today's dictionary
definitions -- but, you purposely try to convince the
readers differently. That's "CREATIVE DELETIONS."
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...You ignore history and keep citing modern sources
that reflect the changed meaning of family. You are
trying to mislead "the readers" that modern definitions
apply to the past....

=========================================================================
Papa Jack shook his head:
The truth is the opposite, Coyote. You quoted PART
of a 1913 definition as "PROOF" that the word "family"
meant something different back then. You creatively
deleted the rest of the 1913 definition which proved
the opposite of what you were claiming.
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
... They don't. Society has changed, the meanings of
words have changed.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
You really hang it out there, don't you, Coyote?
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...There is no need for it and it would be
appreciated if you would stop reinserting
without noting that it is a reinsertion.

=========================================================================

Papa Jack countered:
I will continue to do what I think is necessary
to give the readers a clear picture of the flow
of the discussion. If that involves reinserting
my words when you or others delete them, so be it.

=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
...And you appearently have never heard of an
extended family with several generations living
together supporting each other -- which was the
norm for thousands of years. ...

=========================================================================

Papa Jack laughed:
You do streatch to make some inane points, Coyote.

You initially said that Bishop Michael J. Sheridan

"...does not understand that 'The family - father,
mother and children' is a recent aberration and
will quite likely disappear within another hundred
years."

Again, let's refer to Merriam Webster:
"5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally
consisting of two parents rearing their
own or adopted children; also : any of
various social units differing from but
regarded as equivalent to the traditional
family <a single-parent family>

I think you're wrong as usual, Coyote.

=========================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
*SIGH* That is today's definition. Looking at the 1913
Websters' we find:

Family (Page: 541)
1. The collective body of persons who live in one house,
and under one head or manager; a household, including
parents, children, and servants, and, as the case may be,
lodgers or boarders.

As you can see, the definition of a family has changed.
A family used to consist of far more than just the parents
and children.

=========================================================================

Papa Jack corrected:
Ahhh, but you only quoted the part which agreed with you.
What about the following from the SAME dictionary you
quoted:

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=family

"2. The group comprising a husband and wife
and their dependent children, constituting
a fundamental unit in the organization of
society.
The welfare of the family underlies the
welfare of society. H. Spencer."

See why I don't trust your deletions?

******
Then there's MSN Encarta:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861610422

"family:
"1. people living together: a group of people
living together and functioning as a single
household, usually consisting of parents and
their children"
******
Or, the Cammbridge dictionary:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27901&dict=CALD

"family
group noun
1 [C or U] a group of people who are related to
each other, such as a mother, a father, and
their children:

A new family has/have moved in next door."

=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	01 Jun 2004 10:38:04 PM

papa jackass <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote

I do not do "creative" deletions. I trim down to the part I am
replying to. That's all. I don't care to scroll thru 200 lines of
old material and I doubt other do either. I am not the one who is
trying to mislead:

That is SOOOOO lame.

Of course you are definitely trying to mislead, Coyote.

Where's your evidence, Jackass?

It should be obvious to anyone who pays any attention

.... that you're a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "papa jack"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	03 Jun 2004 06:41:02 PM

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote
in message news:<c9ji2r$7os$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote:

=============================================================================

El Coyote wrote:
I do not do "creative" deletions. I trim down to the part I am
replying to. That's all. I don't care to scroll thru 200 lines of
old material and I doubt other do either. I am not the one who is
trying to mislead:

=============================================================================

Papa Jack wrote, in part:
That is SOOOOO lame.
Of course you are definitely trying to mislead, Coyote.

=============================================================================

Ray Fischer wrote:
Where's your evidence, Jackass?

=============================================================================
Papa Jack replies:
It was in the part you deleted, Ray.
.

User: "Murdoc"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	03 Jun 2004 06:47:34 PM

In a land far, far away, papa jack once declared that:
| |

(Paul Anderson) wrote:
|
| ======================================================================
| =======
| | | | El Coyote wrote:
| | | | I do not do "creative" deletions. I trim down to the part I am
| | | | replying to. That's all. I don't care to scroll thru 200
| | | | lines of old material and I doubt other do either. I am not
| | | | the one who is trying to mislead:
|
| ======================================================================
| =======
| | | Papa Jack wrote, in part:
| | | That is SOOOOO lame.
|
| | | Of course you are definitely trying to mislead, Coyote.
|
| ======================================================================
| =======
| | Ray Fischer wrote:
| | Where's your evidence, Jackass?
|
| ======================================================================
| ======= Papa Jack replies:
| It was in the part you deleted, Ray.
Ray has a habit of not only deleting parts of posts, but failing to
mark those deletions.
--
Murdoc
; =================================
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties,
nations and epochs, it is the rule."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a
compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."
-- Mark Twain
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
-- Joseph Stalin
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	03 Jun 2004 11:38:31 PM

papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote

papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

That is SOOOOO lame.

Of course you are definitely trying to mislead, Coyote.

Where's your evidence, Jackass?

It was in the part you deleted, Ray.

No it was not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "papa jack"
Title: Re: Sinful Votes?	04 Jun 2004 09:13:52 AM

(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c9ouc6$qom$1@bolt.sonic.net>...

papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

(Ray Fischer) wrote

papa jack <papajack37@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

That is SOOOOO lame.

Of course you are definitely trying to mislead, Coyote.

Where's your evidence, Jackass?

It was in the part you deleted, Ray.

No it was not.

=========================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Prove it, Ray.
.