| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
19 Apr 2005 08:13:17 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113860982.267375.95430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are plenty of societies where clothing is no needed to protect
against
cold or scratches. If a tribesman wears a penis sheath, it isn't a
coincidence. It's because that is a part of the body that has
particular significance.
So, if a tribesman wears head ornamentation of some kind, or puts paint
on his chest, or sticks ornaments through his nose or lips, do you draw
the same conclusion?
You seem to be picking your examples very selectively.
I'm contending that the particular significance of the genitalia is
universal. Perhaps that's overstating the case, in the case of
pre-civilised* hunter-gatherer societies. I'm not aware of any society that
has reached the point of small townships where clothing is not used, and
used specifically as a genital cover.
There are societies with a casual attitude to nudity ...
I'm not sure what you mean by a casual attitude, but you seem to
imply
that all societies have an attitude of some sort towards nudity.
If
so, I disagree. I'd say that that there are societies in which
nudity
has no significance whatever -- in which there is no attitude at
all towards nudity.
For example?
The ones I live in. I'm (legally) nude about 80-85% of the time. Were
it not for the Gestapo, it would be 95%.
You might also do some research on Hawaiian, Caribbean, and South
Pacific societies -- before the Christians with the cannons arrived.
Did any of the naked societies have cities?
... and we've had societies where the sight of an ankle or an ear
causes an uproar.
You're using examples that reflect your societal training, examples
that you've been taught to regard as harmless.
But there are no societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance whatsoever.
Uhhh, I live in one. I'm among ten million or so in the United
States.
No, that isn't a society. That's a group of people who like to go
around
with no clothes on. The United States is a classic example of a
genital-obsessed society. The number of people who regard nakedness
as
natural and healthy is far outnumbered by the number of people who
buy
magazines containing close up pictures of women's reproductive
organs.
OK, it's currently a sub-society. The point is the same.
Sub-societies influence societies, often to the point of major change
in the larger society. That's been happening big time in Europe for
the last 100 years. North America is following the same trend, but
with a lag of 25-50 years: Canada is doing pretty well. The United
States is slower, yet progress is steady here too.
I've seen if anything a more complete fetishisation of primary and secondary
sexual areas in the USA and Europe. The Janet Jackson nipple hysteria.
Thongs for nine-year-olds. Children's nakedness has gone from being harmless
and inoffensive to something horrifying.
I note that you spoke neutrally of "the _sight_ of an ankle or an
ear"
but switched to a loaded word in saying "_exposure_ of the
genitalia."
Why do you think of the _sight_ of a penis or scrotum as
"exposure"?
I'll bet you wouldn't speak of "exposing" your nose. In your view,
you're not "exposing" your nose, yet you aren't "concealing" it
either.
It's just there -- not hidden yet not exhibited. Other people
think
that way about all body parts.
Yes, some people do. The vast majority of people on Earth do not.
Not now. Change happens, and is happening.
See above. The Janet Jackson incident speaks for itself. Children had
counselling for the trauma.
And, why should what other people do restrict what I do? What tangible
harm do I do to others?
I didn't say I favoured any kind of restriction.
It's a subject that came to mind following the London marathon
yesterday.
What would someone be willing to do in public? Urinate? Defecate?
Copulate?
Change a tampon? Would they do it in front of a family member, or a
member
of the opposite sex? The same sex?
Oh, sheeeeeeeeeesh!!! What does any of that have to do with simple
absence of opaque coverings over specific, quite ordinary body parts?
They're all perfectly natural functions, which everybody does. Why the
hang-ups about doing them in public? Wouldn't it be healthier if we got rid
of the Judao-Christian repression that made us think that there's something
wrong with them?
Moreover, you named specific body parts (ankle, ear) in plain
English
in your first example, but switched to a Latin-based, medical
collective when speaking of body parts (LOL) "down there."
Well, I consider myself duly analysed. I don't mind writing "penis"
and
"vagina" if I thought it would help.
But, you didn't. A subconscious choice, no doubt, but a societally
conditioned choice nevertheless.
BTW, vaginas are tubes inside the body. They aren't visible.
Then perhaps I'd be better advised to stick to the terminology I originally
chose.
You've been trained, well trained. But, as I said before, you
could
get over it quickly if you gave yourself the opportunity.
If I thought there was something wrong with me, I probably could.
Why not get over a hang-up for the sake of getting over a hang-up?
If it's just a hang-up, like a fear of open spaces, then it's worth getting
rid of. I think it's more fundamental - like a fear of heights.
The question becomes, is the peculiar regard given to certain parts
of the human
body a problem or something entirely natural?
I've already demonstrated that it's 100% the result of societal
conditioning -- conditioning that's reinforced by draconian penalties
for daring to differ.
No, you've claimed as much, without demonstrating it to my satisfaction.
As for being a problem, I don't think that particular peculiarity is a
major problem for those who've been saddled with it -- saddled with an
addiction to wearing needless clothes.
As with so many other peculiarities, the problem comes when those who
have been brainwashed one way insist on forcing others -- literally at
the point of a gun -- to do as they do. You know, arrest,
imprisonment, lifetime placement on sex offender lists -- all for
choosing not to conform to a societal convention that can't be
rationally justified.
How on earth does the sight of a female areola and/or the underside of
a female breast harm anyone? Or the sight of buttocks? Or a patch of
pubic hair? Or a penis or scrotum?
Yet, here in the USA, we blather on and on about being the most free
society on earth.
Ha!
The problems of the USA and how society should manage public nudity are
another matter. I'll leave that for another day.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
21 Apr 2005 09:53:20 PM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113860982.267375.95430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are plenty of societies where clothing is no needed to
protect
against
cold or scratches. If a tribesman wears a penis sheath, it isn't
a
coincidence. It's because that is a part of the body that has
particular significance.
So, if a tribesman wears head ornamentation of some kind, or puts
paint
on his chest, or sticks ornaments through his nose or lips, do you
draw
the same conclusion?
You seem to be picking your examples very selectively.
I'm contending that the particular significance of the genitalia is
universal. Perhaps that's overstating the case, in the case of
pre-civilised* hunter-gatherer societies. I'm not aware of any
society that
has reached the point of small townships where clothing is not used,
and
used specifically as a genital cover.
I'm beginning to think you're pulling my leg. Of course, clothing has
been used throughout human history. Of course clothing has been used
as a genital cover -- and as a head cover, a foot cover, and so on.
All for practical reasons in specific situations. Are you next going
to tell me that the universality of foot coverings (shoes or
equivalent) has some particular significance beyond the protection of
feet in circumstances in which feet need protecting?
Quite simply, you haven't demonstrated that genital coverings were
*always* worn in the company of others, or that failure to do so
brought on draconian punishments. You haven't, because you can't.
There are societies with a casual attitude to nudity ...
I'm not sure what you mean by a casual attitude, but you seem
to
imply
that all societies have an attitude of some sort towards
nudity.
If
so, I disagree. I'd say that that there are societies in which
nudity
has no significance whatever -- in which there is no attitude
at
all towards nudity.
For example?
The ones I live in. I'm (legally) nude about 80-85% of the time.
Were
it not for the Gestapo, it would be 95%.
You might also do some research on Hawaiian, Caribbean, and South
Pacific societies -- before the Christians with the cannons
arrived.
Did any of the naked societies have cities?
As before, you're making a logic error. It's not about *always*
clothed societies versus *always* naked societies. It's about whether
clothedness was an obsession, an obsession that had to be followed at
all times by all people on threat of big time penalties. Towns or no
towns, there have been plenty of societies where nudity was common and
unremarkable -- including genital nudity. Read about the Greeks and
the middle ages. For that matter, read the bible. And, yes, they all
had cities.
... and we've had societies where the sight of an ankle or an
ear
causes an uproar.
You're using examples that reflect your societal training,
examples
that you've been taught to regard as harmless.
But there are no societies
where exposure of the genitalia has no significance
whatsoever.
Uhhh, I live in one. I'm among ten million or so in the United
States.
No, that isn't a society. That's a group of people who like to go
around
with no clothes on. The United States is a classic example of a
genital-obsessed society. The number of people who regard
nakedness
as
natural and healthy is far outnumbered by the number of people
who
buy
magazines containing close up pictures of women's reproductive
organs.
OK, it's currently a sub-society. The point is the same.
Sub-societies influence societies, often to the point of major
change
in the larger society. That's been happening big time in Europe
for
the last 100 years. North America is following the same trend, but
with a lag of 25-50 years: Canada is doing pretty well. The United
States is slower, yet progress is steady here too.
I've seen if anything a more complete fetishisation of primary and
secondary
sexual areas in the USA and Europe. The Janet Jackson nipple
hysteria.
Thongs for nine-year-olds. Children's nakedness has gone from being
harmless
and inoffensive to something horrifying.
You're completely wrong about Europe.
You're partially correct about the United States during what I regard
as the fundy's last gasp, but very little of the progress has been
erased. Miami's South Beach is still topfree, North Miami still has a
thriving and officially blessed clothing-optional beach, anti-thong
laws are routinely ignored and unenforced, topfree is legal in New York
state anywhere men can be shirtless, California has so many de facto
c-o beaches I can't count them, and so on. Women can breastfeed
without being (officially) hassled almost everywhere except Wal*Mart.
Child Protective agencies now tread VERY carefully when some nut
reports a nudist family. Adoptions by nudist couples go through
routinely. Canada is also changing rapidly, more rapidly than the US.
Even Mexico, that bastion of uptightitude, has a whole bunch of nudist
beaches and nudist resorts now.
The fuss in the US has been over TV during the hours that kids watch
("It's the Children!"), and the JJ incident has been pretty well
laughed to death.
<snip>
The Janet Jackson incident speaks for itself. Children had
counseling for the trauma.
There you go again! You just love that logic error of yours. SOME
children had counseling. Would you care to quote the number, then
express it as a percentage of all children who watched that Super Bowl?
And, of the (few) children who were counseled, how many had been
traumatized? Didn't adults insist on counseling kids, and for the
purpose of persuading them after the fact that they had been or should
have been traumatized?
And, why should what other people do restrict what I do? What
tangible
harm do I do to others?
I didn't say I favoured any kind of restriction.
Then what's the point you've been trying to make?
What would someone be willing to do in public? Urinate? Defecate?
Copulate?
Change a tampon? Would they do it in front of a family member, or
a
member
of the opposite sex? The same sex?
Oh, sheeeeeeeeeesh!!! What does any of that have to do with simple
absence of opaque coverings over specific, quite ordinary body
parts?
They're all perfectly natural functions, which everybody does. Why
the
hang-ups about doing them in public? Wouldn't it be healthier if we
got rid
of the Judao-Christian repression that made us think that there's
something
wrong with them?
Urination, defection, and copulation in public have been common
throughout history. Tampons are fairly recent, but the equivalent of
changing one has been going on in public since the beginning of time.
I assume we agree that there are sanitation issues which place
limitations as to where, but aside from that I see no *RATIONAL* reason
why they shouldn't be done within sight of others. Hey, I've done all
but copulate in the unisex facilities at European soccer stadiums at
half-time, and it didn't kill me. After the first time, it didn't even
phase me.
Now, admittedly, I would be reluctant to copulate before a crowd of
onlookers. I chalk that up partly to cultural brainwashing I haven't
overcome, but mostly to fears of criticism as to technique. I'm
reluctant to play water volleyball for the same reason.
In any event, all your examples are way off topic and irrelevant to our
discussion. There's a big difference between seeing a nose, and seeing
a nose dripping snot.
You may generalize on that statement if you wish.
You've been trained, well trained. But, as I said before, you
could
get over it quickly if you gave yourself the opportunity.
If I thought there was something wrong with me, I probably could.
Why not get over a hang-up for the sake of getting over a hang-up?
If it's just a hang-up, like a fear of open spaces, then it's worth
getting
rid of. I think it's more fundamental - like a fear of heights.
If it were fundamental, you wouldn't see France's many naturist and
clothing-optional beaches packed when the weather is good. You
wouldn't have hundreds of resorts, many of them huge, packed to the
gills. You wouldn't see neighborhood pool parties in French backyards,
often a mixture of clothed, topfree, and nude.
<snip>
As with so many other peculiarities, the problem comes when those
who
have been brainwashed one way insist on forcing others -- literally
at
the point of a gun -- to do as they do. You know, arrest,
imprisonment, lifetime placement on sex offender lists -- all for
choosing not to conform to a societal convention that can't be
rationally justified.
How on earth does the sight of a female areola and/or the underside
of
a female breast harm anyone? Or the sight of buttocks? Or a patch
of
pubic hair? Or a penis or scrotum?
Yet, here in the USA, we blather on and on about being the most
free
society on earth.
Ha!
The problems of the USA and how society should manage public nudity
are
another matter.
Why does public nudity need to be managed?
I'll leave that for another day.
In that case, I'm wasting my time.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 05:35:21 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114138400.075149.246520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
....
I'm beginning to think you're pulling my leg. Of course, clothing has
been used throughout human history. Of course clothing has been used
as a genital cover -- and as a head cover, a foot cover, and so on.
All for practical reasons in specific situations. Are you next going
to tell me that the universality of foot coverings (shoes or
equivalent) has some particular significance beyond the protection of
feet in circumstances in which feet need protecting?
Quite simply, you haven't demonstrated that genital coverings were
*always* worn in the company of others, or that failure to do so
brought on draconian punishments. You haven't, because you can't.
Well, I never mentioned universality, or draconian punishments. I said that
there was always a specific attitude to particular parts of the body. If I
look at Egyptian wall paintings, they tend to be of people with varying
amounts of clothing, but the minimal clothing tends to be a loin cloth. The
same kind of thing applies, as far as I'm aware, through all ancient
civilisations.
Where the genitals are shown, it's typically in an erotic context, as in
Indian temple carvings (the kind where the books used to be banned coming in
to Ireland). Or Sheela-na-gigs. The genitals are accentuated - typically
they are the focus of attention - rather than just another part of the body.
I'm not an anthropologist, so I'm open to correction on this.
....
You might also do some research on Hawaiian, Caribbean, and South
Pacific societies -- before the Christians with the cannons
arrived.
Did any of the naked societies have cities?
As before, you're making a logic error. It's not about *always*
clothed societies versus *always* naked societies. It's about whether
clothedness was an obsession, an obsession that had to be followed at
all times by all people on threat of big time penalties. Towns or no
towns, there have been plenty of societies where nudity was common and
unremarkable -- including genital nudity. Read about the Greeks and
the middle ages. For that matter, read the bible. And, yes, they all
had cities.
The Greeks are being discussed in another part of the thread.
My position is not that societies had rules about clothedness which had to
be followed on threat of big time penalties. That would be a top down view
of the matter. My view is that people in those societies tended to regard
public exposure of certain parts of the body as unusual, and something to be
avoided.
....
I've seen if anything a more complete fetishisation of primary and
secondary
sexual areas in the USA and Europe. The Janet Jackson nipple
hysteria.
Thongs for nine-year-olds. Children's nakedness has gone from being
harmless and inoffensive to something horrifying.
You're completely wrong about Europe.
Europe is a big place. There are places in Europe where nude beaches are
common. Not many nude offices though.
You're partially correct about the United States during what I regard
as the fundy's last gasp, but very little of the progress has been
erased. Miami's South Beach is still topfree, North Miami still has a
thriving and officially blessed clothing-optional beach, anti-thong
laws are routinely ignored and unenforced, topfree is legal in New York
state anywhere men can be shirtless, California has so many de facto
c-o beaches I can't count them, and so on. Women can breastfeed
without being (officially) hassled almost everywhere except Wal*Mart.
Child Protective agencies now tread VERY carefully when some nut
reports a nudist family. Adoptions by nudist couples go through
routinely. Canada is also changing rapidly, more rapidly than the US.
Even Mexico, that bastion of uptightitude, has a whole bunch of nudist
beaches and nudist resorts now.
The fuss in the US has been over TV during the hours that kids watch
("It's the Children!"), and the JJ incident has been pretty well
laughed to death.
It was the ludicrous over-reaction that was laughed at - but the
over-reaction happened.
I'm very little concerned with the laws, and their enforcement. It's the
attitude of people in general that interests me.
<snip>
The Janet Jackson incident speaks for itself. Children had
counseling for the trauma.
There you go again! You just love that logic error of yours. SOME
children had counseling. Would you care to quote the number, then
express it as a percentage of all children who watched that Super Bowl?
And, of the (few) children who were counseled, how many had been
traumatized? Didn't adults insist on counseling kids, and for the
purpose of persuading them after the fact that they had been or should
have been traumatized?
Obviously small children couldn't possibly be traumatised by seeing a
nipple, and the idea of counselling them is absurd. But it still happened.
It's possible to broadcast rock videos showing women in extreme
sado-masochistic situations, as long as the critical four spots are covered
up.
And, why should what other people do restrict what I do? What
tangible harm do I do to others?
I didn't say I favoured any kind of restriction.
Then what's the point you've been trying to make?
The point I've been trying to make is that the attitude that people have to
certain parts of their bodies is not necessarily a result of hang-ups, or
Judao-Christian indoctrination, or something wrong with them. I think it's
something fundamental to being human.
I think it's something sufficiently powerful that it can result in bizarre
extremes - Muslim women wearing portable tents, or a vast proportion of
internet traffic being pictures of people showing off parts of their body
for other people to look at.
What would someone be willing to do in public? Urinate? Defecate?
Copulate?
Change a tampon? Would they do it in front of a family member, or
a member of the opposite sex? The same sex?
Oh, sheeeeeeeeeesh!!! What does any of that have to do with simple
absence of opaque coverings over specific, quite ordinary body
parts?
They're all perfectly natural functions, which everybody does. Why
the
hang-ups about doing them in public? Wouldn't it be healthier if we
got rid
of the Judao-Christian repression that made us think that there's
something wrong with them?
Urination, defection, and copulation in public have been common
throughout history.
Temple Bar on a Saturday night. See, this can be on topic for SCI as well as
alt.bible.
Tampons are fairly recent, but the equivalent of
changing one has been going on in public since the beginning of time.
I assume we agree that there are sanitation issues which place
limitations as to where, but aside from that I see no *RATIONAL* reason
why they shouldn't be done within sight of others. Hey, I've done all
but copulate in the unisex facilities at European soccer stadiums at
half-time, and it didn't kill me. After the first time, it didn't even
phase me.
Now, admittedly, I would be reluctant to copulate before a crowd of
onlookers. I chalk that up partly to cultural brainwashing I haven't
overcome, but mostly to fears of criticism as to technique. I'm
reluctant to play water volleyball for the same reason.
In any event, all your examples are way off topic and irrelevant to our
discussion. There's a big difference between seeing a nose, and seeing
a nose dripping snot.
You may generalize on that statement if you wish.
The issue is exactly the same. If something is natural and normal, why hide
it away?
....
If it's just a hang-up, like a fear of open spaces, then it's worth
getting rid of. I think it's more fundamental - like a fear of heights.
If it were fundamental, you wouldn't see France's many naturist and
clothing-optional beaches packed when the weather is good. You
wouldn't have hundreds of resorts, many of them huge, packed to the
gills. You wouldn't see neighborhood pool parties in French backyards,
often a mixture of clothed, topfree, and nude.
What is it like walking through Paris in the afternoon? How many unclothed
people would you see?
Bathing has become a context in which some Western Europeans are comfortable
with topless women, and a smaller number are comfortable with total nudity.
<snip>
....
The problems of the USA and how society should manage public nudity
are another matter.
Why does public nudity need to be managed?
I'll leave that for another day.
In that case, I'm wasting my time.
The strange restrictions imposed in the USA are really not my concern. It's
universal human behaviour that interests me.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
http://www.zenhex.com/quiz.php?id=710
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "• R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 07:51:57 AM |
|
|
In article <1114138400.075149.246520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
westprog wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113860982.267375.95430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are plenty of societies where clothing is no needed to
protect
against
cold or scratches. If a tribesman wears a penis sheath, it isn't
a
coincidence. It's because that is a part of the body that has
particular significance.
So, if a tribesman wears head ornamentation of some kind, or puts
paint
on his chest, or sticks ornaments through his nose or lips, do you
draw
the same conclusion?
You seem to be picking your examples very selectively.
I'm contending that the particular significance of the genitalia is
universal. Perhaps that's overstating the case, in the case of
pre-civilised* hunter-gatherer societies. I'm not aware of any
society that
has reached the point of small townships where clothing is not used,
and
used specifically as a genital cover.
I'm beginning to think you're pulling my leg. Of course, clothing has
been used throughout human history. Of course clothing has been used
as a genital cover -- ...
** Definitely not on one local beach.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 08:33:19 AM |
|
|
"• R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-2204050551570001@192.168.1.103...
In article <1114138400.075149.246520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
....
I'm beginning to think you're pulling my leg. Of course, clothing has
been used throughout human history. Of course clothing has been used
as a genital cover -- ...
** Definitely not on one local beach.
Most beaches will have most people wearing clothes which only cover their
primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is done as much to
attract as out of modesty.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
http://www.zenhex.com/quiz.php?id=710
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 08:36:09 AM |
|
|
"westprog" <westprog@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:227ae.52049$Z14.41572@news.indigo.ie...
". R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-2204050551570001@192.168.1.103...
In article <1114138400.075149.246520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
...
I'm beginning to think you're pulling my leg. Of course, clothing has
been used throughout human history. Of course clothing has been used
as a genital cover -- ...
** Definitely not on one local beach.
Most beaches will have most people wearing clothes which only cover their
primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is done as much to
attract as out of modesty.
Or, because it's illegal in that particular area to sunbathe in the nude.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
26 Apr 2005 02:38:31 AM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
Most beaches will have most people wearing clothes which only cover
their
primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is done as much
to
attract as out of modesty.
Or, because it's illegal in that particular area to sunbathe in the
nude.
Robyn, all three come into play.
Society teaches that modesty means covering certain patches of skin --
which is a far cry from the historical meaning of the word or even
modern dictionary definitions.
You're correct that many people would not use those coverings were it
not for major penalties. As every dictator understands, heavyhanded
supression works.
However, were those the only two factors, the coverings would often be
drab. They almost never are. I can't recall seeing a body colored or
otherwise drab colored swimsuit on a female. They all use bright color
and multiple contrasting bright colors to draw all eyes to the very
areas they are (for whatever reason) concealing.
When one adds all the shape-enhancing features of swimsuits (and of
ordinary dress too), there's no doubt in my mind that attraction is a
major goal.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
26 Apr 2005 05:24:11 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114501111.914311.233120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
....
However, were those the only two factors, the coverings would often be
drab. They almost never are. I can't recall seeing a body colored or
otherwise drab colored swimsuit on a female. They all use bright color
and multiple contrasting bright colors to draw all eyes to the very
areas they are (for whatever reason) concealing.
When one adds all the shape-enhancing features of swimsuits (and of
ordinary dress too), there's no doubt in my mind that attraction is a
major goal.
:-)
And therein might be a clue as to why human beings wear clothes. Or even why
human beings remain unnecessarily hairy in certain areas.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
http://www.zenhex.com/quiz.php?id=710
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
26 Apr 2005 05:42:42 AM |
|
|
In article <KEobe.52229$Z14.42431@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
And therein might be a clue as to why human beings wear clothes. Or even why
human beings remain unnecessarily hairy in certain areas.
*Unnecessarily* hairy...? You just watch yourself, young man!
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
26 Apr 2005 06:59:46 AM |
|
|
"The Great Hairy One" <the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cd8c62d1e30440a9897f0@freenews.iinet.net.au...
In article <KEobe.52229$Z14.42431@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
And therein might be a clue as to why human beings wear clothes. Or even
why
human beings remain unnecessarily hairy in certain areas.
*Unnecessarily* hairy...? You just watch yourself, young man!
I have noticed hairiness increasing with age.
J/
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
http://www.zenhex.com/quiz.php?id=710
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
26 Apr 2005 04:07:50 PM |
|
|
In article <n2qbe.52234$Z14.42452@news.indigo.ie>,
says...
I have noticed hairiness increasing with age.
I think a beating is in order.
;)
SOTW: "Your Racist Friend" - They Might Be Giants
At least your taste in music is reasonable.
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
26 Apr 2005 12:48:53 PM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114501111.914311.233120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
...
However, were those the only two factors, the coverings would often
be
drab. They almost never are. I can't recall seeing a body colored
or
otherwise drab colored swimsuit on a female. They all use bright
color
and multiple contrasting bright colors to draw all eyes to the very
areas they are (for whatever reason) concealing.
When one adds all the shape-enhancing features of swimsuits (and of
ordinary dress too), there's no doubt in my mind that attraction is
a
major goal.
:-)
And therein might be a clue as to why human beings wear clothes.
That's certainly one of the reasons, and one I have no problem with.
However, just because most people are sexual exhibitionists most of the
time, that majority shouldn't gang up on those of us who don't want to
be (all the time) by passing laws that force *everyone* to wear
clothes.
Hey, as I hope y'all know, I have no problem with clothes and no
problem with those who use clothes to draw attention to (or to fake
enhancements to) their sexuality. I've been known to do a bit of that
myself from time to time.
It's the compulsion that I object to. There should be no law requiring
that arbitrarily selected body parts be covered.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
26 Apr 2005 04:21:00 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114501111.914311.233120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Most beaches will have most people wearing clothes which only cover
their
primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is done as much
to
attract as out of modesty.
Or, because it's illegal in that particular area to sunbathe in the
nude.
Robyn, all three come into play.
Whatever - I know you're into this nudity thing.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
27 Apr 2005 03:56:51 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114501111.914311.233120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Most beaches will have most people wearing clothes which only
cover
their
primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is done as
much
to
attract as out of modesty.
Or, because it's illegal in that particular area to sunbathe in
the
nude.
Robyn, all three come into play.
Whatever - I know you're into this nudity thing.
Robyn, a suggestion: If you're not interersted in a subthread, don't
post in it.
:-)
Jenny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
27 Apr 2005 05:05:08 PM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114635411.112360.121580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114501111.914311.233120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
Most beaches will have most people wearing clothes which only
cover
their
primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is done as
much
to
attract as out of modesty.
Or, because it's illegal in that particular area to sunbathe in
the
nude.
Robyn, all three come into play.
Whatever - I know you're into this nudity thing.
Robyn, a suggestion: If you're not interersted in a subthread, don't
post in it.
A suggestion - If you don't like my posts, plonk me.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "• R. L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 10:29:24 AM |
|
|
In article <227ae.52049$Z14.41572@news.indigo.ie>, "westprog"
<westprog@hotmail.com> wrote:
"• R. L. Measures" <_r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:_r-2204050551570001@192.168.1.103...
In article <1114138400.075149.246520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com> wrote:
...
I'm beginning to think you're pulling my leg. Of course, clothing has
been used throughout human history. Of course clothing has been used
as a genital cover -- ...
** Definitely not on one local beach.
Most beaches will have most people wearing clothes which only cover their
primary and secondary sexual characteristics. This is done as much to
attract as out of modesty.
• So you design swimsuits?
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
22 Apr 2005 01:59:42 AM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2005 19:53:20 -0700, "Jenny6833A" <Jenny6833A@aol.com>
wrote:
<------Snipped this: it was good and relevant to the discussion at
large but I only wanted to comment on this section--->
Hey, I've done all but copulate in the unisex facilities at European soccer stadiums at
half-time, and it didn't kill me. After the first time, it didn't even
phase me.
Now, admittedly, I would be reluctant to copulate before a crowd of
onlookers. I chalk that up partly to cultural brainwashing I haven't
overcome, but mostly to fears of criticism as to technique. I'm
reluctant to play water volleyball for the same reason.
I have had sex in the unisex facilities at the stadium and the
"criticism as to technique" is not as bad as you might think. It was
interesting to hear the comments made by those watching/observing as
they went about their business, but nobody offered any advice on a
better position or technique for better enjoyment whilst copulating
standing up, so I can only gather that we were doing an okay job of
it. Of the hundreds of people that passed by no one was shocked that
two people could do such a thing in so public a place or in front of
the children.
<---snipped the rest too sorry--->
Jenny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
25 Apr 2005 02:47:39 PM |
|
|
Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<16t0619vnj2c57e3vroqprdn3osrs9ruri@4ax.com>...
<snip>
There is nothing in the bible that says that god only created Adam and
Eve. It's possible that at the same time God created other humans in a
different part of Eden.
<snip>
It must be nice to already know the answer and have the option of
unconditionally manipulating the evidence into agreement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Post Colonial Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
25 Apr 2005 03:23:34 PM |
|
|
On 25 Apr 2005 12:47:39 -0700, (James) wrote:
Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<16t0619vnj2c57e3vroqprdn3osrs9ruri@4ax.com>...
<snip>
There is nothing in the bible that says that god only created Adam and
Eve. It's possible that at the same time God created other humans in a
different part of Eden.
<snip>
It must be nice to already know the answer and have the option of
unconditionally manipulating the evidence into agreement.
I'd like to know what the virtue was in creating 2 humans first, as if
they were the parents of the human race and then creating others as
well?
PCB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
15 Apr 2005 10:04:30 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:00:06 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:1rkv5153laqc87fkef8ffil649bggl3lmo@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:47:58 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2hev515vjc3faoa1oo1rgq2b4m45mku0pl@4ax.com...
Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
As Adam and Eve were the first humans they were not related to each
other. They did not have human parents. It was the will of god that
they mate and have children.
Yes, so says your myth. However, who did Adam and Eve's children mate
with?
Each other?
The bible states that Adam and Eve had two son's. One of the son's,
Cain had a wife who gave him a gave him a son. The bible suggests that
Cain meet his wife when he moved to the land of Noid, on the east of
Eden. As there are parts of Genesis that are missing in the bible then
where Cain's wife came from is not revealed.
There was a TV program called "banned from the bible" that made if
clear that not all past scriptures were added to the bible.
Bible Studier
You forgot Seth and Adam's other sons and daughters.
Genesis 5:3-5 KJV
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in
his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred
years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty
years: and he died.
The command in Genesis 1:28 was to be fruitful and multiply:
Genesis 1:28 KJV
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth.
There was no biological reason that Adam and Eve (who was built from
Adam) could not mate and there was no biological reason that their
children could obey the commandment.
Of course not. Except that the result of mating between blood relatives is
often mental retardation and a wide variety of birth defects.
True, at a later point in time; but, not then.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
15 Apr 2005 10:37:41 AM |
|
|
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
news:2ulv511i8v2426vbrb51qp26fla96aplce@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:00:06 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Bible Bob" <biblebobnospam@biblebob.net> wrote in message
snip
There was no biological reason that Adam and Eve (who was built from
Adam) could not mate and there was no biological reason that their
children could obey the commandment.
Of course not. Except that the result of mating between blood relatives
is
often mental retardation and a wide variety of birth defects.
True, at a later point in time; but, not then.
Uh huh. riiiiiight. Do you honestly believe that everyone on the face of
the planet is descended from two people?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 02:15:46 PM |
|
|
Uh huh. riiiiiight. Do you honestly believe that everyone on the face of
the planet is descended from two people?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
<Pedantic Mode On>
Actually, yes we are.
A Mummy and a Daddy.
Unless you're a clone.
<Pedantic Mode Off>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 02:19:28 PM |
|
|
"Steve O" <stoboyle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cifb2F6n1tatU1@individual.net...
Uh huh. riiiiiight. Do you honestly believe that everyone on the face
of
the planet is descended from two people?
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
<Pedantic Mode On>
Actually, yes we are.
A Mummy and a Daddy.
Unless you're a clone.
<Pedantic Mode Off>
Oy ;)
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 02:42:38 PM |
|
|
Uh huh. riiiiiight. Do you honestly believe that
everyone on the face of the planet is descended
from two people?
That's what the scientists say.
--
Antagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 05:21:59 PM |
|
|
Antagonist for God wrote:
Uh huh. riiiiiight. Do you honestly believe that
everyone on the face of the planet is descended
from two people?
That's what the scientists say.
Real scientists? Or creationist "scientists"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
18 Apr 2005 04:14:45 PM |
|
|
In article <ub386112onvgp3smhm9ttnll1cr6ti8sj2@4ax.com>, news-group-
mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com says...
Uh huh. riiiiiight. Do you honestly believe that
everyone on the face of the planet is descended
from two people?
That's what the scientists say.
Actually, no. What the scientists say is that the RNA within the
mitochondria can be traced back to only a few different genetic
families. Not that we all came from two people.
--
The Great Hairy One,
ICQ: 118086514
All BAAWA and blue
SMASH! Aha! They'll save every one of us!
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
The last thing many players
hear is me asking for 45d6...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christinsanity" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
28 Jan 2008 09:23:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 01:47:58 +1200, Wonder <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Wonder" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2hev515vjc3faoa1oo1rgq2b4m45mku0pl@4ax.com...
Ninth Commandment <ninthcommandment@yabbadabbadoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunatly there were lots of Elohim running around at the time.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +1200, Ned Kelly <republican@email.com>
wrote:
Tell me, if Adam and Eve were the first humans then didn't the third
generation come about by incest?
Isn't that wrong according to God?
Ned
As Adam and Eve were the first humans they were not related to each
other. They did not have human parents. It was the will of god that
they mate and have children.
Yes, so says your myth. However, who did Adam and Eve's children mate
with?
Each other?
The bible states that Adam and Eve had two son's. One of the son's,
Cain had a wife who gave him a gave him a son. The bible suggests that
Cain meet his wife when he moved to the land of Noid, on the east of
Eden. As there are parts of Genesis that are missing in the bible then
where Cain's wife came from is not revealed.
There was a TV program called "banned from the bible" that made if
clear that not all past scriptures were added to the bible.
Bible Studier
You forgot Seth and Adam's other sons and daughters.
Genesis 5:3-5 KJV
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in
his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred
years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty
years: and he died.
The command in Genesis 1:28 was to be fruitful and multiply:
Genesis 1:28 KJV
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth.
There was no biological reason that Adam and Eve (who was built from
Adam) could not mate and there was no biological reason that their
children could obey the commandment.
You actually sound like beLIEve this ***** - lmao...
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
--
"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity
one redeeming feature"
- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-fathers-xtianity.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nebulous" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 01:29:52 AM |
|
|
"Christinsanity" <j.wuest@comcast.net> wrote in message news:uKidnW-
The Troubles of Matthew Mahoney
In a little town in Devonshire, in the mellow September moonlight,
A gentleman passing along a street saw a pitiful sight,
A man bending over the form of a woman on the pavement.
He was uttering plaintive words and seemingly discontent.
"What's the matter with the woman?" asked the gentleman,
As the poor, fallen woman he did narrowly scan.
"There's something the matter, as yer honour can see,
But it's not right to prate about my wife, blame me."
"Is that really your wife?" said the gentleman.
"Yes, sor, but she looks very pale and wan."
"But surely she is much younger than you?"
"Only fourteen years, sor, that is thrue."
"It's myself that looks a deal oulder nor I really am,
Throuble have whitened my heir, my good gintleman,
Which was once as black as the wings of a crow,
And it's throuble as is dyed it as white as the snow.
Come, my dear sowl, Bridget, it's past nine o'clock,
And to see yez lying there it gives my heart a shock."
And he smoothed away the raven hair from her forehead,
And her hands hung heavily as if she had been dead.
The gentleman saw what was the matter and he sighed again,
And he said, "It's a great trial and must give you pain,
But I see you are willing to help her all you can."
But the encouraging words was not lost upon the Irishman.
"Thrial!" he echoed, "Don't mintion it, yer honour,
But the blessing of God rest upon her.
Poor crathur, she's good barrin' this one fault,
And by any one I don't like to hear her miscault."
"What was the reason of her taking to drink?"
"Bless yer honour, that's jest what I oftentimes think,
Some things is done without any rason at all,
And, sure, this one to me is a great downfall.
'Ah, Bridget, my darlin', I never dreamt ye'd come to this,"
And stooping down, her cheek he did kiss.
While a glittering tear flashed in the moonlight to the ground,
For the poor husband's grief was really profound.
"Have you any children?" asked the gentleman.
"No, yer honour, bless the Lord, contented I am,
I wouldn't have the lambs know any harm o' their mother,
Besides, sor, to me they would be a great bother."
"What is your trade, my good man?"
"Gardening, sor, and mighty fond of it I am.
Kind sor, I am out of a job and I am dying with sorrow."
"Well, you can call at my house by ten o'clock to-morrow.
"And I'll see what I can do for you.
Now, hasten home with your wife, and I bid you adieu.
But stay, my good man, I did not ask your name."
"My name is Matthew Mahoney, after Father Matthew of great fame,"
Then Mahoney stooped and lifted Bridget tenderly,
And carried her home in his arms cheerfully,
And put her to bed while he felt quite content,
Still hoping Bridget would see the folly of drinking and repent.
And at ten o'clock next morning Matthew was at Blandford Hall,
And politely for Mr Gillespie he did call,
But he was told Mrs Gillespie he would see,
And was invited into the parlour cheerfully.
And when Mrs Gillespie entered the room
She said, "Matthew Mahoney, I suppose you want to know your doom.
Well, Matthew, tell your wife to call here to-morrow."
"I'll ax her, my lady, for my heart's full of sorrow."
So Matthew got his wife to make her appearance at Blandford Hall,
And, trembling, upon Mrs Gillespie poor Bridget did call,
And had a pleasant interview with Mrs Gillespie,
And was told she was wanted for a new lodge-keeper immediately.
"But, Bridget, my dear woman, you mustn't drink any more,
For you have got a good husband you ought to adore,
And Mr Gillespie will help you, I'm sure,
Because he is very kind to deserving poor."
And Bridget's repentance was hearty and sincere,
And by the grace of God she never drank whisky, rum, or beer,
And good thoughts come into her mind of Heaven above,
And Matthew Mahoney dearly does her love.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
28 Jan 2008 10:52:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:23:03 -0800, Christinsanity
<j.wuest@comcast.net> spake thusly:
There was no biological reason that Adam and Eve (who was built from
Adam) could not mate and there was no biological reason that their
children could obey the commandment.
You actually sound like beLIEve this ***** - lmao...
And you don't care at all about that God that you claim
doesn't exist, which is why your handle is what it is!
Goodbye! <chuckle>
--
"The Evolutionist will not get on a bullet train knowing
there's tracks missing down the line, but he certainly
gets on the Evolution Train with lots of tracks missing
in his story line!" - Old Man Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nebulous" |
|
| Title: Re: Isn't incest wrong Pastor Dave? |
29 Jan 2008 01:30:11 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
The Troubles of Matthew Mahoney
In a little town in Devonshire, in the mellow September moonlight,
A gentleman passing along a street saw a pitiful sight,
A man bending over the form of a woman on the pavement.
He was uttering plaintive words and seemingly discontent.
"What's the matter with the woman?" asked the gentleman,
As the poor, fallen woman he did narrowly scan.
"There's something the matter, as yer honour can see,
But it's not right to prate about my wife, blame me."
"Is that really your wife?" said the gentleman.
"Yes, sor, but she looks very pale and wan."
"But surely she is much younger than you?"
"Only fourteen years, sor, that is thrue."
"It's myself that looks a deal oulder nor I really am,
Throuble have whitened my heir, my good gintleman,
Which was once as black as the wings of a crow,
And it's throuble as is dyed it as white as the snow.
Come, my dear sowl, Bridget, it's past nine o'clock,
And to see yez lying there it gives my heart a shock."
And he smoothed away the raven hair from her forehea | | | |
