Avoid Sweden at all cost!!!

Tim Kroesen wrote:
"I have nothing against you being Catholic as long as you don't use your
religious beliefs to tell me how *I* should live. If the Pope and other
Catholic priests don't want to use a condom when they **** each other,
that's their choice. It is when they tell other people that condoms are
evil, thereby sending them to death, that I accuse them of mass-murder.

"If [...]
Catholic priests don't want to use a condom when they **** each other,
that's their choice."

"Given that I do have some experience with this in the past (i.e. dating
catholic priests- I'm not one myself) I'd say they don't practise what
they preach. Thank goodness for small mercies."

"It is sad that the Catholic church creates so much suffering.

"All religions try to interfere with the rights of other people"

You didn't look very hard; or even back in this very thread Miguel...

I don't see a single case where anyone's condemning private behavior. What
people are complaining about here are things that affect millions. In fact
the first quote was quite specific in its distinction between caring about
things that affect others but not about private behaviors.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

But I've been talking about their broadcasting of unfair damning
generalizations regarding religion and America all along; where have you
been ?

Better yet; who does their unfair banter serve; certainly not the topic
of this group. When I make some equally off topic and much more polite
observations about Homosexuals in rebuttal they go ballistic while you
join in... Yeah; they were trolled just like they prefer to troll
others...

Seems to me you guys just refuse to see my point; keep it *all* the hell
out of here; so will I. Can't you accept the fact I may justifiably be
just as offended as you in the off topic intentionally incendiary banter
I clearly did NOT initiate on this NG bashing religion and America?
Have I not the same 'right' to manure spreading y'all claim? SO cut
it out; so will I; end of off topic discussion!

We're all now *EQUALLY* offended; and NO ONE here is served!

Tim K

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Tim Kroesen wrote:
"I have nothing against you being Catholic as long as you don't use
your
religious beliefs to tell me how *I* should live. If the Pope and
other
Catholic priests don't want to use a condom when they **** each
other,
that's their choice. It is when they tell other people that condoms
are
evil, thereby sending them to death, that I accuse them of
mass-murder.

"If [...]
Catholic priests don't want to use a condom when they **** each
other,
that's their choice."

"Given that I do have some experience with this in the past (i.e.
dating
catholic priests- I'm not one myself) I'd say they don't practise
what
they preach. Thank goodness for small mercies."

"It is sad that the Catholic church creates so much suffering.

"All religions try to interfere with the rights of other people"

You didn't look very hard; or even back in this very thread
Miguel...

I don't see a single case where anyone's condemning private behavior.
What
people are complaining about here are things that affect millions. In
fact
the first quote was quite specific in its distinction between caring
about
things that affect others but not about private behaviors.

miguel
--
Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

"PTRAVEL" wrote:

: I'm sure that you'd define anything the Israelis do as terrorism.

No, pull out of the occupied land, remove all the illegal settlements.
Pay for the destroyed houses and the killed civilians.

Then I will immediately stop being against Israel. Hope you agree with
that.

Regards
peter

"PTRAVEL" wrote:

: I'm sure that you'd define anything the Israelis do as terrorism.

How would you define this:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...136426,00.html

Ala Dawaya, 21, was on his way to work as a baker when he was shot by
Israeli soldiers in the old town of Nablus on 18 December. An ambulance was
called and driver Adnan Soso arrived to see the wounded man sitting upright
and still alive a few metres from an army Jeep.

'I was called at around 3am to an area known as the onion market,' he said.
'I got there within about three minutes and saw an injured man lying against
a wall within metres of an Israeli Jeep.'

He reversed to the end of the street, from where he could still see the
injured man and the Jeep. 'Then they started shooting at the man from the
Jeep. Every time they shot, the body moved and they waited then shot again,
sometimes twice. They shot him about ten times over several minutes,' he
said.

Eventually, the shooting stopped and the Jeep allowed the ambulance to
approach. 'The man was dead and both his eyeballs were hanging out. I looked
at what he had in the black plastic bag next to him. Trousers, shoes and an
overall, covered in flour. We put him on a stretcher and got him into the
ambulance.

'As we were about to pull away, the Jeep approached. The soldier said: 'Is
he dead?' He then asked what was in the bag and I showed him. He asked for
the dead man's identification card and spoke on the radio for a few minutes.
He then told us to take the body away.'

The ambulance took the body to Rafidia Hospital where it was examined by Dr
Samir Abu Zarour. Although not trained in post-mortems, he is the closest
thing to an expert in Nablus, having examined 250 shooting victims in the
past three years.

'He had been shot between eight and 10 times, including twice in the face
and once in the testicles, and had a series of fragmentation wounds in his
legs,' he said.

Jeremy Henderson wrote in message ...
"PTRAVEL" wrote:

: I'm sure that you'd define anything the Israelis do as terrorism.

How would you define this:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...136426,00.html

The same as I would anything in the Guardian: biased propaganda
without the slightest shred of credibility.

(PTRAVEL) wrote in message . com...
Jeremy Henderson wrote in message ...
"PTRAVEL" wrote:

: I'm sure that you'd define anything the Israelis do as terrorism.

How would you define this:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...136426,00.html

The same as I would anything in the Guardian: biased propaganda
without the slightest shred of credibility.

As long as your definition of "propaganda" is similar to your
definition of "terrorism", ie like Humpty Dumpty in Through the
Looking Glass "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more
nor less", then maybe you're right.

Here above ground things are a bit different ....

J;

"Jeremy" wrote in message
om...
(PTRAVEL) wrote in message
. com...
Jeremy Henderson wrote in message
...
"PTRAVEL" wrote:

: I'm sure that you'd define anything the Israelis do as
terrorism.

How would you define this:


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...136426,00.html

The same as I would anything in the Guardian: biased propaganda
without the slightest shred of credibility.

As long as your definition of "propaganda" is similar to your
definition of "terrorism",

My definition of "propaganda" is probably the same as yours: one-sided,
inaccurate and/or distorted descriptions of events, masquerading as
objective reporting.

ie like Humpty Dumpty in Through the
Looking Glass "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more
nor less", then maybe you're right.

Here above ground things are a bit different ....

J;

On 3/2/04 4:41 pm, in article
, "PTRAVEL"
wrote:


"Jeremy" wrote in message
om...
(PTRAVEL) wrote in message
. com...
Jeremy Henderson wrote in message
...
"PTRAVEL" wrote:

: I'm sure that you'd define anything the Israelis do as
terrorism.

How would you define this:


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...136426,00.html

The same as I would anything in the Guardian: biased propaganda
without the slightest shred of credibility.

As long as your definition of "propaganda" is similar to your
definition of "terrorism",

My definition of "propaganda" is probably the same as yours: one-sided,
inaccurate and/or distorted descriptions of events, masquerading as
objective reporting.

Then I await with interest your evidence that this definition applies to the
article in question.

But I'm not holding my breath.

ie like Humpty Dumpty in Through the
Looking Glass "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more
nor less", then maybe you're right.

Here above ground things are a bit different ....

J;