Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: charles_casey_google_groups@yahoo.com (Charles C.)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Position statement - Charles Casey's wife was no better than a prostitute.
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 65
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ff22d5bc.0404110453.43b70445@posting.google.com>
References: <c58g9k$nck$0@pita.alt.net> <pan.2004.04.11.05.01.06.130996@terralink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1081687973 79121 128.100.83.246 (11 Apr 2004 12:52:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.82.165.230
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3225
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.11.05.01.06.130996@terralink.net>...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:54:01 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > If Charles Casey's wife was only good to him and a wife to him when he was
> > well and able to provide, and then divorced him and had him put out on the
> > street when he was unwell, then she was no better than a hooker, and the
> > elders who enabled her to do it, they were like her pimps.
> >
> > And you can quote me on that.
> >
>
> Why the hell would we want to?
>
> You do realize, of course, that one can express moral outrage without
> using sexual terminology towards a person that Charles obviously once
> cared about deeply, if he doesn't now. (I personally am not aware of
> Charles' feelings towards his ex-wife; that's his business unless he cares
> to share it with the group.)
>
> Now, if _I'd_ had a similar thought to the one you'd had, I might have
> phrased it a bit differently.
>
> "If Charles Casey's wife was only good to him and a wife to him when he
> was well and able to provide, and then divorced him and had him put out on
> the street when he was unwell, then she is clearly in violation of the
> spirit of the marriage contract, which calls for two people to be "one
> flesh", and is generally vowed "in sickness and in health". Granted, I
> don't know Charles Casey's wife, but I for one would like to apologize for
> the actions of my fellow Christians, who treated him so poorly when he
> became ill."
>
> What do you guys think? Maybe a bit more acceptable than Davey's version?
Yes Daniel, thank you. But that wasn't his intent. He was only
interested in shifting the topic once again. That's what Davey does
when it gets too hot for him. He knew that putting my full name and
the word "prostitute" in the title would piss me off and that is the
only reason that he did it. The man is a professional troll.
I have been calling him on his "Christianity" and yes I did use my ex
as an example because it had everything to do with the church and
Calvinism which was the subject matter, not my ex. But he didn't have
any comeback because he knew that I was right (it pisses him off when
I tell him to follow Jesus) so he started this thread hoping to change
the subject. That he did do, I'll give the troll that.
His presence here doesn't really have anything to do with
Christianity, that is just the excuse he used to troll T.O. with
Jason. Before he hooked up with Jason he was trolling the .soc groups
with sock puppets and the same type of behavior and it had nothing to
do with "spreading the gospel." It does have everything to do with him
seeking attention. What sane person would keep coming back after Lenny
relentlessly nailed them for their idiotic behavior? He wants
attention and he will sink to any depth to get it.
What kind of idiot posts a "position statement" in talk.origins about
another person's ex-wife with "prostitute" in the title? He could have
made a comment in the thread we were in and I would have called him on
it and I may have even discussed it with him but he wasn't looking for
a discussion, he was looking for a diversion. The man is a troll,
nothing more. There is nothing human left in him. OSAS in all its
glory.
-Charles
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|