| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2007 02:09:27 AM |
| Object: |
WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
He said so himself last week in a statement, after delighting the
Secular Coalition of America, which is offering a $1,000 prize to the
person who could identify the "highest level atheist, agnostic,
humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected
public office in the United States."
I take Stark at his word, even though he may be chasing the
thousand-buck prize.
In reporting on this development, the San Francisco Chronicle hooked
on the angle that politicians couldn't be so frank about matters of
disbelief a generation ago, calling it "one of the last frontiers" of
politics.
But I would like to focus on another angle.
In making his "brave" comments, Stark explained that he is "a
Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being." The 75-year-old
old member of Congress then added: "Like our nation's founders, I
strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to
working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow
religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the
provision of social services."
When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the
block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in
support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant
of history.
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported –
strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this
letter – that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54883
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
28 Mar 2007 10:11:21 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:j34k0316dnvi3alldn2k6de8msodjtul58@4ax.com...
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported -
strongly or not - the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
And the Holocaust never happened. Darwin recanted on his deathbed. They
found the Ark!
The whole article boils down to: "There's an single atheist in Congress.
This scares me."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
28 Mar 2007 06:49:18 PM |
|
|
In article <j34k0316dnvi3alldn2k6de8msodjtul58@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
<snip>
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this
letter – that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
But then why have our courts interpreted the First Amendment that way
for over two hundred years?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54883
J. Spaceman
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
28 Mar 2007 12:32:02 PM |
|
|
In article <j34k0316dnvi3alldn2k6de8msodjtul58@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman said...
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported ?
strongly or not ? the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter ? and only in this
letter ? that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
I'm tempted to think Farah is literally a lunatic.
Immediately after insisting that "none of America's"
founders supported separation, he admits that Jefferson
did. Further, he challenges people in "Internet-land" to
demonstrate that other founders spoke of separation. Well,
anyone in Internet-land can use a search engine to find,
for instance, Madison's comments on the matter:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like
an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability,
and performs its functions with complete success, whilst
the number, the industry, and the morality of the
priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been
manifestly increased by the total separation of the church
from the State." (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
And so forth.
More and more I'm becoming convinced of this fact: to be a
religious conservative, a person much be ether devoid of
sense or devoid of honesty.
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
30 Mar 2007 03:00:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:32:02 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <j34k0316dnvi3alldn2k6de8msodjtul58@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman said...
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported ?
strongly or not ? the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter ? and only in this
letter ? that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
I'm tempted to think Farah is literally a lunatic.
Immediately after insisting that "none of America's"
founders supported separation, he admits that Jefferson
did. Further, he challenges people in "Internet-land" to
demonstrate that other founders spoke of separation. Well,
anyone in Internet-land can use a search engine to find,
for instance, Madison's comments on the matter:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like
an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability,
and performs its functions with complete success, whilst
the number, the industry, and the morality of the
priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been
manifestly increased by the total separation of the church
from the State." (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
And so forth.
More and more I'm becoming convinced of this fact: to be a
religious conservative, a person much be ether devoid of
sense or devoid of honesty.
A couple of days ago I had a sick ***** of a Southern Baptist whom I
absolutely despise insist that atheism is not only a religion, its an
organized religion.
The actual definition of atheism means nothing to the idiot.
I've had two telephone conversations with the self rightous jerk in
less than a week and was rude as hell right back at him each time.
The bastards' a damned liar as well as being a nitwit.
I quoted and explained a scripture during one conversation and he
insisted I was wrong and gave his version.
I told him which passage it was, he read it later and during the next
conversation the lying fool denied he had said what he did.
<Thats not the first lie he's told>
I've known him and his idiot wife for two years and one day they just
decided that I'm an indecent man, not because of any indecent thing
I've done but just because I'm an atheist.
And they seemed to be such nice folks before.
Damned hypocrites.
If there were a God he would have created Hell so he would have a
place to put Southern Baptists.
They are evil people.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
01 Apr 2007 09:09:31 PM |
|
|
In article <j1fp039qiadfbmgmq9a7dt8i11b126n88u@4ax.com>,
said...
I've known him and his idiot wife for two years and one day they just
decided that I'm an indecent man, not because of any indecent thing
I've done but just because I'm an atheist.
And they seemed to be such nice folks before.
Damned hypocrites.
I often what kind of mentation occurs when such a person,
who had previously decided you were a fine human being,
learns that you're an atheist. Is there even a moment of
doubt and consideration? Or is the filter so strong that
all your previous virtues are instantly relegated to being
delusions of the devil?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
01 Apr 2007 09:20:13 PM |
|
|
In article
<MPG.207a2fe7ae343df198a3ee@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Brian
E. Clark said...
In article <j1fp039qiadfbmgmq9a7dt8i11b126n88u@4ax.com>,
said...
I've known him and his idiot wife for two years and one day they just
decided that I'm an indecent man, not because of any indecent thing
I've done but just because I'm an atheist.
And they seemed to be such nice folks before.
Damned hypocrites.
I often what kind of mentation occurs when such a person,
Ooops, should be, "I often wonder what kind of mentation
occurs..."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
30 Mar 2007 06:03:26 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mar., 09:09, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD------
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
He said so himself last week in a statement, after delighting the
Secular Coalition of America, which is offering a $1,000 prize to the
person who could identify the "highest level atheist, agnostic,
humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected
public office in the United States."
I take Stark at his word, even though he may be chasing the
thousand-buck prize.
In reporting on this development, the San Francisco Chronicle hooked
on the angle that politicians couldn't be so frank about matters of
disbelief a generation ago, calling it "one of the last frontiers" of
politics.
But I would like to focus on another angle.
In making his "brave" comments, Stark explained that he is "a
Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being." The 75-year-old
old member of Congress then added: "Like our nation's founders, I
strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to
working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow
religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the
provision of social services."
When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the
block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in
support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant
of history.
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported -
strongly or not - the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter - and only in this
letter - that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD--------------
Read it athttp://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=3D54883
J. Spaceman
So that particular phrase was not used. So what?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
28 Mar 2007 12:01:23 PM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 2:09 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
He said so himself last week in a statement, after delighting the
Secular Coalition of America, which is offering a $1,000 prize to the
person who could identify the "highest level atheist, agnostic,
humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected
public office in the United States."
I take Stark at his word, even though he may be chasing the
thousand-buck prize.
In reporting on this development, the San Francisco Chronicle hooked
on the angle that politicians couldn't be so frank about matters of
disbelief a generation ago, calling it "one of the last frontiers" of
politics.
But I would like to focus on another angle.
In making his "brave" comments, Stark explained that he is "a
Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being." The 75-year-old
old member of Congress then added: "Like our nation's founders, I
strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to
working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow
religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the
provision of social services."
When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the
block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in
support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant
of history.
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported -
strongly or not - the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter - and only in this
letter - that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it athttp://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54883
J. Spaceman
the article later quotes justice rehnquist in wallace v jaffree, but
of course he neglects to tell us that rehnquist was writing a dissent,
not the opinion of the court!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
30 Mar 2007 02:27:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:09:27 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
He said so himself last week in a statement, after delighting the
Secular Coalition of America, which is offering a $1,000 prize to the
person who could identify the "highest level atheist, agnostic,
humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected
public office in the United States."
I take Stark at his word, even though he may be chasing the
thousand-buck prize.
In reporting on this development, the San Francisco Chronicle hooked
on the angle that politicians couldn't be so frank about matters of
disbelief a generation ago, calling it "one of the last frontiers" of
politics.
But I would like to focus on another angle.
In making his "brave" comments, Stark explained that he is "a
Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being." The 75-year-old
old member of Congress then added: "Like our nation's founders, I
strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to
working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow
religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the
provision of social services."
When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the
block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in
support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant
of history.
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported –
strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this
letter – that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54883
Didn't you just love this part?
"What does Pete Stark know that I don't know?...
Is he lying or is he delusional?"
I nearly fell out of my chair.
atheist@home#1554
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
28 Mar 2007 02:26:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:09:27 -0400, Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
He said so himself last week in a statement, after delighting the Secular
Coalition of America, which is offering a $1,000 prize to the person who
could identify the "highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other
kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United
States."
I take Stark at his word, even though he may be chasing the thousand-buck
prize.
In reporting on this development, the San Francisco Chronicle hooked on
the angle that politicians couldn't be so frank about matters of disbelief
a generation ago, calling it "one of the last frontiers" of politics.
But I would like to focus on another angle.
In making his "brave" comments, Stark explained that he is "a Unitarian
who does not believe in a Supreme Being." The 75-year-old old member of
Congress then added: "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the
separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular
Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science,
marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."
When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the
block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in
support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant of
history.
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported –
strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me
about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in
Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any
founder ever used the phrase "separation of church and state."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54883
What an imbecile. If he does not recognize the Constitution that the
Founding Fathers authored as evidence of their support for the notion of
separation of church and state, I don't know what else would do it.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
28 Mar 2007 02:48:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:26:56 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:09:27 -0400, Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
He said so himself last week in a statement, after delighting the Secular
Coalition of America, which is offering a $1,000 prize to the person who
could identify the "highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other
kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United
States."
I take Stark at his word, even though he may be chasing the thousand-buck
prize.
In reporting on this development, the San Francisco Chronicle hooked on
the angle that politicians couldn't be so frank about matters of disbelief
a generation ago, calling it "one of the last frontiers" of politics.
But I would like to focus on another angle.
In making his "brave" comments, Stark explained that he is "a Unitarian
who does not believe in a Supreme Being." The 75-year-old old member of
Congress then added: "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support the
separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular
Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science,
marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."
When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the
block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in
support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant of
history.
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported –
strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell me
about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in
Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this letter – that any
founder ever used the phrase "separation of church and state."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54883
What an imbecile. If he does not recognize the Constitution that the
Founding Fathers authored as evidence of their support for the notion of
separation of church and state, I don't know what else would do it.
Most Right-wingnuts have never actually read the Constitution, with
the exception of the Second Amendment.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
29 Mar 2007 07:15:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:48:09 -0400, raven1 wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:26:56 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:09:27 -0400, Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 28, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
It's official. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., is an atheist.
He said so himself last week in a statement, after delighting the
Secular Coalition of America, which is offering a $1,000 prize to the
person who could identify the "highest level atheist, agnostic,
humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected
public office in the United States."
I take Stark at his word, even though he may be chasing the
thousand-buck prize.
In reporting on this development, the San Francisco Chronicle hooked on
the angle that politicians couldn't be so frank about matters of
disbelief a generation ago, calling it "one of the last frontiers" of
politics.
But I would like to focus on another angle.
In making his "brave" comments, Stark explained that he is "a Unitarian
who does not believe in a Supreme Being." The 75-year-old old member of
Congress then added: "Like our nation's founders, I strongly support
the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the
Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in
science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social
services."
When I hear statements like this, from people who have been around the
block a time or two, I have to wonder if the man is knowingly lying in
support of his perverted beliefs or whether he is hopelessly ignorant
of history.
Let me put it this way: None of America's founding fathers supported –
strongly or not – the notion of separation of church and state. None.
Nada. Zip. Zilch. Bupkis.
If someone out there in Internet-land would like to challenge that
statement, please simply provide some evidence. And please don't tell
me about Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist
Association in Connecticut. It is in this letter – and only in this
letter – that any founder ever used the phrase "separation of church
and state."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54883
What an imbecile. If he does not recognize the Constitution that the
Founding Fathers authored as evidence of their support for the notion of
separation of church and state, I don't know what else would do it.
Most Right-wingnuts have never actually read the Constitution, with the
exception of the Second Amendment. --
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
This drives me nuts! I know you have said that your sig is English, and
one will 'get it' if read aloud, but i cannot figure it out! Any hints?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
29 Mar 2007 10:50:27 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:15:54 -0400, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote:
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
This drives me nuts! I know you have said that your sig is English, and
one will 'get it' if read aloud, but i cannot figure it out! Any hints?
OK, for the benefit of all...
"Oh, see, Billy! See 'er go!
Forty buses in a row
Oh no, Billy, them is trucks
See what's in 'em? Cows and ducks"
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Stark, raving atheist |
29 Mar 2007 11:46:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:50:27 -0400, raven1 wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:15:54 -0400, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
This drives me nuts! I know you have said that your sig is English, and
one will 'get it' if read aloud, but i cannot figure it out! Any hints?
OK, for the benefit of all...
"Oh, see, Billy! See 'er go!
Forty buses in a row
Oh no, Billy, them is trucks
See what's in 'em? Cows and ducks"
I was pronouncing 'Sybilli' as 'Sigh bill eye'.
I think I was happier when I thought it was a profound, latin saying!
Such is the price of knowledge, eh?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
