IAAH wrote:

You are the spokesperson for all atheist, and you are representing how
atheist think.

Uh huh. When did that happen? You're going to need to show just what
that occurred.

Then publicly disagree with the poster then.

No, YOU are going to have to show just WHEN the poster came to speak
for me.

Actually, you are doing it for me.

Or admit that you made that up, your call.

I don't have to admit anything,

IAAH wrote:

On 16 Dec 2006 16:15:17 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

IAAH wrote:

On 16 Dec 2006 11:15:17 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

panamfloyd@hotmail.com wrote:

J Young wrote:

Decency never takes a holiday.








http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/152006e.asp



(AgapePress) - Concerned citizens near Green Oak Township, Michigan,
say despite some success already, they plan to continue their
letter-writing campaign concerning window displays featuring
scantily-clad mannequins at Victoria's Secret in the town mall.

snip

Not our fault christians are too ugly to wear that stuff. Jealous?

There you go, speak for ALL atheist and show that atheist spirit!!!

You are the spokesperson for all atheist, and you are representing how
atheist think.

Uh huh. When did that happen? You're going to need to show just what
that occurred.

Then publicly disagree with the poster then.

No, YOU are going to have to show just WHEN the poster came to speak
for me.

Actually, you are doing it for me. You just don't get it yet. It will
probably come to you at a later time, and you will go "DOH"..."he
played me like a fool"

Or admit that you made that up, your call.

I don't have to admit anything, you are supporting my statement just
fine. You just don't realize it yet..even though I am telling you.

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

No One wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

No One wrote:

"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> writes:

<snip> Some anal retentive kkkristians are upset about some
mannequins that have underwear on them. And, kkkristian hypocrite J.
Young mindlessly follows along.

FYI in San Francisco a year or two ago, a few people complained about
a store in the Castro with its mannequins set up in leather with an
S&M motif due to it being within a couple of weeks of the adult-rated
Folsom Street Faire. Seems some parents (including ones living in the
Castro) didn't want to have to explain to their 6 year olds what the
whips were for, not to mention some other implements. Another store
had a wooden sculpture featuring an oversized penis and that also
generated complaints - but that was in kind of an art gallery and the
scupture was some sort of south-east asian art (at least that is what
they told the press).

Young's comments remind me of a line from some silly old movie. "You
think that is the monster? Wait til you see the monster!" Just some
mannequins in underwear (J Young's complaint) wouldn't raise an
eyebrow around here. :-)

First let's keep things in perspective and leave the personal attacks
out of this.

What "personal attack"? If you meant Pr0r3p's comments, you should
make it clear as to who you are refering to, but I didn't make one. I
merely made a comment about Young's opinion, not about Young,

I don't always agree with Young; however, I do happen to think that
this article he presents makes a valid point.

He doens't, nor does the article. Put in perspective, they are making
a mountain out of a molehill.

They are not objecting to the models wearing "underwear", they are
objecting to the style of underwear.

LOL! Have you seen the "styles" prominently on display in store windows
in San Francisco? :-)

Let's keep something in mind. In the malls, parens have children.

And the children will not notice underwear or even think about it unless
the parents go apoplectic.

I know here in Delaware, the same complaint was lodged against the
Victoria Secrets in our local mall. The management, was kind enough to
recognize the complaints, and the models now wear underwear that isn't
"sexually" suggestive. In other words they toned it down, kept the
suggestive style inside the stores, and everyone was happy.

As everyone else said, you people need to lighten up.

Right, but lets see a "cross" on the side of a road set up as a
memorial, or a student say "God" in a speech at school, or a religious
symbol on the graves at a veteran cemetary, and you guys have a cow.

Don't tell me to lighten up hypocrite

Osprey is a f___ing liar: by "you guys" he means liberals, and what he
claims has never happened. In particular, I have never objected to
any of what Osprey claims, making his charge of hypocrisy a complete
and utter lie.

I really doubt if he can find even one incident of anyone objecting to
a family putting up a road-side memorial,

veteran's family putting a religious symbol at his/her grave.
Liberals would not object to a student voluntarily saying "God" in a
speech at school either, but would object to a public school
indoctrinating a kid in a particular religion, or forcing a kid to
read a prayer over a P.A. system.

Curiously, the only case I've heard of in which anyone objected to a
"cross" on a roadside memorial were some neocons who didn't like a
display of a number of crosses with a sign that said "Support the
troops". The neocons thought it was a political (and anti-war)
message. The diplay was put up in the East Bay (the area on the
opposite side of SF Bay from San Francisco), and as I recall, Cindy
Sheenan was one of the people involved in creating it.