Atheism

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b] [QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b] So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.[/QUOTE] The lone archbishop who thinks somebody in Europe is lacing condoms and AIDS medication to finish of the African people can't blamed be on broad Catholic policy Thomas. Get real. Even the article, from a Catholic news site, noted "However, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio’s opposition to condoms goes beyond the Church’s teaching on sex and sexuality." There are paranoid, rogue people in every profession and sometimes they end up with a public voice. It's unfortunate but it happens. [/QUOTE] Are you even capable of reading? The quote you attacked me on was "I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS." That is *exactly* what I have *proven* to you was done. All your "the lone archbishop ... can't be blamed on broad Catholic policy" is just a load of crap to distract from the point. I never said anything about "broad Catholic policy", I said I didn't like bishops telling their flock the exact lies that this (arch)bishop told his. You were wrong. Deal with it. [QUOTE]It's true however that suspicion about the wisdom and efficacy of condom campaigns in Africa was generally shared by the Catholic hierarchy in the early years of the new millenium.[/QUOTE] Damn right it's true. It's a belief still held by many clergymen today. [QUOTE]Trujillo's case that condoms could allow HIV to pass through was the first attempt to bring science to an increasingly held belief by the Church that condom campaigns were failing Africa.[/QUOTE] No, it was an attempt to use science to support established doctrine. "Condoms are a moral evil" is the dogma - anything that would support that view was welcome. [QUOTE] It was intended to support feelings that the use of condoms to protect against AIDS in Africa was "Russian Roulette....leading people to think they are fully protected" and that the promotion of condoms as the answer to AIDS "is to lead many to their death." Instead, fidelity or abstinence was the answer. It's true the use of science in those early years was somewhat selective and overstated, and outside of the consensus of the day, but it wasn't entirely incorrect. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm. [/QUOTE] In your view, when a little over 2% of tested types of condoms (from a sample of 470) are theoretically penetrable to the HIV virus, it is "not entirely incorrect" to say that condoms do not protect against AIDS at all. Which is what Trujillo did. If that is your view, than in your view no politician has ever told a lie, and every time you have accused me of saying something that isn't true, I was considerably more than "not entirely incorrect". [QUOTE]At the bottom of that 2004 piece were some of the thoughts of the very early scientific and epidemiological proponents of the then radical idea that condoms needed a second look at there was increasing evidence that they were not fulfilling their promise in Africa. One scientific source used by Trujillo and the Church in 2004 was described in 2009 by Harvard AIDS specialist Edward Green this way: In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa." It's of course hard to know how that 2004 coverage might have differed if what is known today was known then. Your use of Benedict's quote as the final nail in your coffin of 'moderation' is one more irritating example of having to follow you around and mop up completely unnecessary stupidity. That is the precise quote I used to show that the statement was true, science based and directly and explicitly supported by epidemiology and epidemiologists in 2009. I'm not going to reargue the whole thing because it's all there in my previous post. The somewhat retroactively "well duh" truth is that when 25% and more of the young people in a country are infected with HIV a device with a non insignificant risk of physical and human failure is a terrible primary strategy to fight the spread of AIDS. We now know that an emphasis on condom distribution campaigns almost certainly increased infections in these countries. Edward Green again: So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well. [/QUOTE] GF's answer to AIDS: teach the darkies abstinence. Welcome back to 1880. Sure, there wasn't any AIDS then, but that doesn't mean their views don't still apply, right? Also, the fact that Edward C. Green himself pointed out that "the tendency of people in steady relationships to not use condoms" was the primary reason for the fact that the spread of AIDS wasn't slowing down as fast as was expected (Cassell MM, et al. (2006). "Risk compensation: the Achilles' heel of innovations in HIV prevention?" BMJ 332(7541): 605-607.) is something you gladly ignore. So when people refuse to use condoms and get AIDS because of that, it proves that condoms are inadequate protection, right? [QUOTE]Condoms are dead last on everybody's list now. How the African epidemics might have charted a different course if the hard to displace western condom orthodoxies had been more critically looked at in the early 2000's when the Church and others first raised alarms cannot be known. If people were remotely able to wrestle in their rabid hatred for the Catholic Church, in your case apparently to the point of being willing to indirectly continue the outdated and deadly promotion of condoms as the primary solution to AIDS in Africa, it would be interesting to consider the implications of the fact that in being behind the Vatican was actually ahead. [/QUOTE] Yeah, sure. Of course, "everyone" does not include the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/actagainstaids/basics/prevention.html), the European Commission's health advisory (http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/case-studies/myanmar_health_en.pdf, this particular publication refers to work in Myanmar) or Doctors Without Borders (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=3512&cat=field-news), but hey, what do they know? They're only fighting the epidemic. [QUOTE]Here are the raft of the 'the Pope was right' stories from 2009, which also catch the Church stance on condoms in countries in which the epidemiological patterns are different. http://www.google.ca/search?q=pope+right+about+condoms&aq=f&oq=pope+right+about+condoms&aqs=chrome.0.57j59j62l3.4415j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 [/QUOTE] But of course, you gladly ignore all publications that dissented. Obviously they were all communist anti-Catholics, especially Doctors Without Borders. [QUOTE]That anti-catholism is the new anti-semitism of elements of the left has been passionately and painstakingly argued in scholarship and books for some time. In my long experience it is certainly so. Sorry about your modern day anti-semitism Thomas. You should work on that.[/QUOTE] This is truly pathetic, as pathetic as all the cheap jabs at me you tried to make in your later posts. Maybe, if you had a little knowledge of history, you'd be aware that anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Not of rabbi's, of Jewish theology or of Jewish institutions, but the c

[QUOTE]That anti-catholism is the new anti-semitism of elements of the left has been passionately and painstakingly argued in scholarship and books for some time. In my long experience it is certainly so. Sorry about your modern day anti-semitism Thomas. You should work on that.[/QUOTE]

This is truly pathetic, as pathetic as all the cheap jabs at me you tried to make in your later posts. Maybe, if you had a little knowledge of history, you'd be aware that anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Not of rabbi's, of Jewish theology or of Jewish institutions, but the complete, total, wholesale hatred of every single Jewish man, woman or child. If you will compare severe criticism of the Vatican (i.e. catholic leadership and institutions) with that, you have not an ounce of decency. You are so desperate to be persecuted that you will abuse anything to make yourself look like a poor victim. Well, I have news for you: even the most fanatical No Popery of the 19th century still fell far short from wholesale anti-Semitism, and nobody here holds views even CLOSE to 19th century No Popery.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Are you even capable of reading? The quote you attacked me on was "I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS." That is *exactly* what I have *proven* to you was done. All your "the lone archbishop ... can't be blamed on broad Catholic policy" is just a load of crap to distract from the point. I never said anything about "broad Catholic policy", I said I didn't like bishops telling their flock the exact lies that this (arch)bishop told his. You were wrong. Deal with it.
[/QUOTE]

I am well aware that various strata of the CC up to and including the Pope have warned against the use of condoms as a solution to HIV and AIDS. I had after all made a post to that precise effect a day or two prior to yours. I couldn't address any letters to any flocks because I haven't heard that specific claim from anyone other than from you, and despite your assertion that that is *exactly* what you have *proven* there was nothing about any letters to any flocks in your links either.

Regardless, I was willing to accept it as a blunt symbol for what you were trying to express. And what you mean to express is that the Catholic Church - not a lone Archbishop - is evil and deliberately choosing dogma over life. That is precisely about "broad Catholic policy" and you are utterly disingenuous to pretend otherwise. The first time your specific allegation appeared it was in this sentence: "Sure, the Catholic church does good things. But when African bishops send official letters to the believers telling them that using condoms will give them AIDS, that is evil, and such evil taints all the good they might do." A rogue Archbishop expressing a paranoid delusion that has nothing to do with official teaching doesn't taint the enormity of the accomplishments and service of the CC unless you believe it is somehow the fault or reflection of the faith or its general practices. Which you clearly do, so take responsibility for that.

What I actually said was that I rejected not the mechanics of your statement but the intended implication. Implying that the church is as a matter of general practice ignorant and evil on matters of HIV and AIDS in Africa is a misstatement of facts. I said so. I was not wrong. You deal with it.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
No, it was an attempt to use science to support established doctrine. "Condoms are a moral evil" is the dogma - anything that would support that view was welcome.
[/QUOTE]

Not quite. Condoms are a moral evil because as a tool to fight AIDS they promote casual sexual relationships was the dogma. And yes, anything that would support that view was welcome. That's how arguments generally work.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
In your view, when a little over 2% of tested types of condoms (from a sample of 470) are theoretically penetrable to the HIV virus, it is "not entirely incorrect" to say that condoms do not protect against AIDS at all. Which is what Trujillo did. If that is your view, than in your view no politician has ever told a lie, and every time you have accused me of saying something that isn't true, I was considerably more than "not entirely incorrect".
[/QUOTE]

He did not say that. He said that anywhere from 15% to 20% could be vulnerable to leakage and in your link called this a "margin of uncertainty". 15% to 20% is a full magnitude of order off the evidence presented in the rebuttal, thus making its sources selective and it conclusions overstated, which is exactly what I said the first time. The assessment of "not entirely incorrect" extended to other parts of the position that included the links between condom use, increased sexual activity and risk compensation.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Also, the fact that Edward C. Green himself pointed out that "the tendency of people in steady relationships to not use condoms" was the primary reason for the fact that the spread of AIDS wasn't slowing down as fast as was expected (Cassell MM, et al. (2006). "Risk compensation: the Achilles' heel of innovations in HIV prevention?" BMJ 332(7541): 605-607.) is something you gladly ignore.

So when people refuse to use condoms and get AIDS because of that, it proves that condoms are inadequate protection, right?
[/QUOTE]

Cherry picked and misleading. Human behaviour and human impulse cannot be removed from the equation. Isn't that the crux of the argument against abstinence campaigns? Review Green's Op Ed for the point you highlighted in context. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-03-29/opinions/36866483_1_condom-distribution-aids-experts-epidemics

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Yeah, sure. Of course, "everyone" does not include the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/actagainstaids/basics/prevention.html), the European Commission's health advisory (http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/case-studies/myanmar_health_en.pdf, this particular publication refers to work in Myanmar) or Doctors Without Borders (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=3512&cat=field-news), but hey, what do they know? They're only fighting the epidemic.
But of course, you gladly ignore all publications that dissented. Obviously they were all communist anti-Catholics, especially Doctors Without Borders.
[/QUOTE]

A couple of years ago I called you a regurgitator who liked to vomit up chunks of data but who showed little in the way of depth of understanding or the ability to synthesize information. This is such a classic example. These publications didn't "dissent". I don't believe anybody dissented. I can assure you that when a top Harvard researcher makes a statement that the Pope may be right on condoms in Africa, journalists were absolutely shitting themselves scrambling to find an epidemiologist to say otherwise. That, to my knowledge, didn't happen. Instead what came out was a significant series of confirmations from many places: from 20 year missions in the field, from influential voices associated with the Anglican Church, from a French epidemiologist who said "All epidemiologists agree today that the campaigns to distribute [condoms] in countries where the proportion of affected people is very high, do not work." (previously linked), from many others with some angle of insight into this complex problem.

You clearly utterly missed Green's fundamental point: a Western and secular bias on an epidemiological situation that cannot be compared to other places where HIV is not endemic and widespread in the general population. You miss it and then you embody it. None of those links address Africa's unique and specific epidemiological situation. Myanmar is irrelevant. The CDC is about as Western as one can get and its experience and focus is in and on the United Sates.

The Doctors Without Borders link that promotes a philosophy that condoms are the key to safe sex presumes the Western ideology that people largely can't or won't alter their sexual behaviour beyond using condoms. The implication is that this is a fixed reality and adequate for all epidemiological situations. Three days later Green made his statement in the Washington Post providing significant scientific support for the fact that these hopes had not been borne out in Africa and that in fact it was the programs that put lesser emphasis on condoms as a primary response that had the success. If Doctors Without Borders, a secular organization founded in the West , developed in the West, and run from five operational centres in Europe responded to that with its own data refuting it, I didn't see it.

As far as "fighting the epidemic" it is interesting to note that for every 1 individual Doctors Without Borders volunteer covering various occupations and involved in various issues around the world there are slightly under 5 Catholic medical facilities just in the developing world, from remote clinics to large hospitals, all dedicated to or involved with the care of those afflicted with AIDS and their communities. I can assure you that the outfit providing 25% of AIDS work globally and more than 50% of it in Africa alone is not Doctors Without Borders.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
GF's answer to AIDS: teach the darkies abstinence. Welcome back to 1880. Sure, there wasn't any AIDS then, but that doesn't mean their views don't still apply, right?
[/QUOTE]

I don't have any answer to AIDS, but I can think without the burden of not only religious dogma, but liberal and secular dogma as well. I find Green's analysis rather self evident in retrospect. When 1 in 4 of a society's young people are HIV positive it seems clear to me that an AIDS intervention strategy that in real world use will fail to provide an intact barrier in roughly 1 in 5 uses is a poor bet. Green proposes promoting strategies that push up the age of first sexual activity, encourage abstinence, monogamy or closed polygamy, and finally, suggests condom use as the last strategy. Assuming that African people don't have sufficient intelligence, self respect or hope for the future to understand the gravity and uniqueness of their epidemiological situation and to make personal decisions regarding their sexuality that people make everyday around the world is what devalues them. That's you not me. People are monogamous or voluntarily abstinent if they are not in a loving and committed relationship all the time. There is nothing freakish or uncommon or hopelessly inaccessible about those choices at all. That secular campaigns promoting fidelity and abstinence have been successful in Africa is a matter of epidemiological record. That increased population infection rates have correlated with increased emphasis on condom distribution is pause for, well, pause. And thought. And jumping off inane liberal and anti-Catholic bandwagons.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b] This is truly pathetic, as pathetic as all the cheap jabs at me you tried to make in your later posts. Maybe, if you had a little knowledge of history, you'd be aware that anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Not of rabbi's, of Jewish theology or of Jewish institutions, but the complete, total, wholesale hatred of every single Jewish man, woman or child. If you will compare severe criticism of the Vatican (i.e. catholic leadership and institutions) with that, you have not an ounce of decency. You are so desperate to be persecuted that you will abuse anything to make yourself look like a poor victim. [/QUOTE] Funny that you should formulate these precise lame excuses. I previously mentioned a book called The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Thoughtful, balanced and well received, it included the following passage in a Chapter called 'Limits of Hatred' in a section called 'Anti-ism' which was itself preambled by a section titled 'The Thinking Man's Anti-Semitism" : "...this distinction between institution and people is a very weak defense. Unlike those other instances, the institution of of the Church is fundamental to the Catholic religion, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. The NAACP is simply not central to black cultural identity in the way that the Church defines Catholicism. The Pope may be the institutional head of a gigantic political and corporate entity, but for hundreds of millions of people, he is also a living symbol of their faith. Moreover, if the Catholic Church as an institution is so wicked, so homicidal, what does that say about the people who believe deeply in it, for whom it provides organizing principles of their lives, the basis of their social identity? Anti-Church sentiment leads naturally to contempt for practicing or believing Catholics, whose faith must reflect emotional weakness, internal repression, or unnatural subservience to authority. The National Lampoon once featured a parody of multiple-choice exams, in which one question read "Only a very ______ person believes in Catholicism." There were four possible answers , a through d, all of which offered the same word to fill in the gap: stupid. The chapter later goes on to ask "So when does a statement or act plausibly make the transition from criticism to bigotry, to "anti-ism"? Once again, we can see a useful parallel in the concept of anti-Semitism. Nobody would complain if a news outlet accurately reported the criminal activities of an individual who was Jewish. On the other hand, most observers would complain bitterly if the media outlet in question proposed that the form of criminality was peculiarly characteristic of Jews or arose from features of the Jewish religion or ethnicity. It would be still worse to report a given crime or misdeed along with real or imaginary instances of Jewish misdeeds through the centuries, implying that "this is what Jews do, this is what they are like". That would be frank anti-Semitism." How does this sound: Sure Judaism accomplishes some good things, but when rabbis in in Scottsdale, Arizona write letters to their flock telling them to send them their income tax cheques because the IRS laced them with anthrax, that is evil, and such evil taints all the good that Judaism does. Hint: It sounds stupid. And utterly anti-Semitic. I've never claimed to be a victim I don't think. I've described degrees of an experience here, governed mostly by a combination of the weight of the poison and anti-religious bigotry and how long I had felt a degree of aloneness in the conversation at any given time. At first you feel diminished, and in the right circumstances eventually crushed. Sometimes helplessly angry, helplessly sad, deeply unsettled. I twice deleted QZ from my bookmarks and decided I was running away and never coming back. The emotion behind that is not a small thing when you've invested posts and thoughts in the thousands with people who feel like part of your life. People can do whatever they like with that, or not. It's not about pity for me or any of the others zillion people who experience this stuff in some form on a daily basis. It's about an opportunity to form an empathy that doesn't come easily or naturally to people on a subject that has the illusion of a remoteness from real human beings that simply does not exist. Not on message boards, or in media comment sections, or in subways, or in cafeterias or any other place this level of ignorance and insensitivity regularly tumbles out.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Zebonka12 wrote:[/b]

Y'all keep saying things that don't apply to me (this 'Why Christianity and not the others?' thing is an example) so I'll have to play it safe and assume I keep getting someone else's mail here. [/QUOTE]

Zeb, I've found your posts in this thread to be well-considered, profound and balanced. That surprised me since I'm used to seeing one-liners from you. Sadly, the responses that seem directed to someone else - the contorting of your words and meaning - are just a symptom of this thread and have been happening since the early pages. I think when people come into a discussion believing their way is the right way for everyone, anyone who shows an opposing perspective - for whatever reason - is attacked. I, for one, am glad you've posted these comments, and I have found them to be quite grounding.

TQ, to paraphrase Panchgani's comment to GF - don't waste your time arguing. We've been doing that for 16 pages now and the responses have been filled with rage, hysteria, insults, fictitious identities and purposeful twists of perceptions. In other words, anything to get off topic, which is what the personal attacks are about. Distraction. You're better than that. The "unholy trinity" (that is Bob, you and me, apparently) is better than that. So are our points. It's wasted energy to hope the other side will see that.
[/QUOTE]

That's so cooooooooooool ... I've always been in a club with you. TQ is cooking dinner. I've heard he makes a mean bigot roast.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Are you really so desperate to spit venom at people whose views are not your own that you will resort to doing so when it's completely out of context?[/QUOTE]

I have sufficient faith in Zebonka's intelligence that he'll understand that it's completely in context and hardly venomous. You, not so much.[/QUOTE]

Do you honestly fail to understand what you yourself write? God, I've had it with you. I'm going to take the above advise and stop wasting time on you.[/QUOTE]

No, don't give up !

"You and bigot #2 seriously make me sick down to my toes and you can be assured that every drop of anger and disgust comes from that place and nowhere else."

^ why give up when there's a chance at making this comment even better?

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

It did make sense, catqueen. And I’m happy to know you found a happy welcoming church after leaving the strict harsh one to which you had once belonged. I think yours is a beautiful example of how someone’s faith can be so much a part of who they are yet not overshadow the fact that others will/can/do feel differently.
[/QUOTE]

And just when I thought you'd run out of ways to make me ill on this topic. Why don't you take a moment to explain to catqueen how her faith is a crutch? And perhaps a moment to explain to me why Catholicism should be overshadowed by your unprincipled willingness to drag around unjust characterizations of a Pope's words on AIDS in Africa for example, or subjected to inane stabs at the dearth of 'higher intelligence' back though hundreds of years such leaders.

Nobody who has been remotely paying attention thinks you have a single ounce of respect or regard for anybody's religious practice. Please. This entire thread has been an exercise in watching the masks slowly slip off a couple of bigots. Nice try on the tolerant long suffering reasonableness, but but your hair is a mess, your shirt is on backwards and you've got lipstick smeared down to your chin. My last internal defense of you on this topic was that you at least had the courage of your distasteful convictions.

I'll light a candle.[/QUOTE]

For fuck's sake - it seriously saddens me to see you stoop so low, to actually become an internet troll. I had such hope for you.

Point me to the post where MFM (or anyone, for that matter) said all adherents of every religion use it at a crutch.

Write a book. Do something useful. You have the intellect. Maybe then you'll stop trolling people in your spare time and make better use of it.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b] [QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b] [QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b] I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS.[/QUOTE] As I've already explained, at great multi-paragraph length, the implication of that is simply not true. It's not. It's a handy misrepresentation of facts that allows weak minded liberals who should know better to wallow in their self-affirming version of anti-Semitism. Why would you volunteer to be such a risible moron? Google hard and google often. "The door of a[n apprentice] bigot's mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.” -Ogden Nash [/QUOTE] You are a slandering liar. Your accusation of anti-Semitism is frankly perverse. I shouldn't be responding to scum like you, but I can't pass up on this opportunity to prove what a lying ass you are. * In 2007, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique announced that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting condoms with HIV to spread Aids in Africa. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/african_archbishop_claims_condoms_were_infected_with_aids/ Chimoio isn't alone, aid workers report that the Catholic church is making it impossible for them to hand out condoms to those who do want them, and that priests tell the populace that condoms are laced with the HIV virus. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids In a 2003 BBC documentary the South American cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo asserted that condoms don't protect against AIDS at all, and that the use of condoms thus helps spread AIDS. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/catholicism.colombia " In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!" " http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom There are also plenty of deranged baptists who make the same claims: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=54128 So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.[/QUOTE] Standing ovation. This may be the best ever thread at this website. And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice. Preferably in a non-theistic way.

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Yeah, and unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism have nothing to do with that, of course...

[/QUOTE]

Oh tsk, tsk, TQ. Didn't you know? The spewing of such slanderous insults is permitted from one side only. Those on the other side must not respond in kind but must, instead, take their lumps without retort lest they be deemed created of some lesser moral fabric.

[/QUOTE]

Stop being a bigot and you won't have to worry about having your distasteful and shameful behaviour outed. And seriously, taking intellectual succor from ThomasQuinn is the QZ version of failing an IQ test.[/QUOTE]

If you don't like the guy, that's fine (well it isn't, since anyone of sane mind can't possibly find anything not to like). But please, don't let it cloud your judgement to the point of looking like a complete idiot.

He is the absolute finest investigative historian Queenzone (and likely almost any other forum you've ever read) has to offer.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

This may be the best ever thread at this website.

And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice.

Preferably in a non-theistic way. [/QUOTE]

Our crowning ceremony should include not just crowns but the entire ensemble.

[QUOTE]

[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

I don't like bishops writing letters to their flock telling them not to use condoms because they will give you AIDS.[/QUOTE]

As I've already explained, at great multi-paragraph length, the implication of that is simply not true. It's not. It's a handy misrepresentation of facts that allows weak minded liberals who should know better to wallow in their self-affirming version of anti-Semitism. Why would you volunteer to be such a risible moron? Google hard and google often.

[i]"The door of a[n apprentice] bigoted's mind opens outwards so that the only result of the pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly.”

-Ogden Nash[/i]

[/QUOTE]

You are a slandering liar. Your accusation of anti-Semitism is frankly perverse. I shouldn't be responding to scum like you, but I can't pass up on this opportunity to prove what a lying ass you are.

* In 2007, Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique announced that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting condoms with HIV to spread Aids in Africa.

[url=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/african_archbishop_claims_condoms_were_infected_with_aids]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/african_archbishop_claims_condoms_were_infected_with_aids[/url]/

Chimoio isn't alone, aid workers report that the Catholic church is making it impossible for them to hand out condoms to those who do want them, and that priests tell the populace that condoms are laced with the HIV virus.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids[/url]

In a 2003 BBC documentary the South American cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo asserted that condoms don't protect against AIDS at all, and that the use of condoms thus helps spread AIDS.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/catholicism.colombia]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/catholicism.colombia[/url]

" In March 2009, on his flight to Cameroon (where 540,000 people have HIV), Pope Benedict XVI explained that Aids is a tragedy "that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". In May 2009, the Congolese bishops conference made a happy announcement: "In all truth, the pope's message which we received with joy has confirmed us in our fight against HIV/Aids. We say no to condoms!" "

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/11/bad-science-pope-anti-condom[/url]

There are also plenty of deranged baptists who make the same claims: [url=http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=54128]http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=54128[/url]

So, in summary, you are a complete and total liar.[/QUOTE]

Standing ovation.

This may be the best ever thread at this website. 

[/QUOTE]

Only if you have very low standards, or are a complete dimwit, could your reach that conclusion.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

That's so cooooooooooool ... I've always been in a club with you. TQ is cooking dinner. I've heard he makes a mean bigot roast.[/QUOTE]

A couple of anti-religious bigots find each other brilliant, fun and fascinating. Somebody stop the presses.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

If you don't like the guy, that's fine (well it isn't, since anyone of sane mind can't possibly find anything not to like). But please, don't let it cloud your judgement to the point of looking like a complete idiot.

He is the absolute finest investigative historian Queenzone (and likely almost any other forum you've ever read) has to offer.[/QUOTE]

Good Christ Bob. Maybe if history's most pressing question was who forgot to wrap the cheese after the Theodore Roosevelt American History Award ceremony. I can't even count the clean ups in fact and reason that have been required over the years once TQ winds up. It's nothing to do with liking or not liking, it's just the way it is.

I'd suggest you confine your comedy to pasting George Carlin links. There's a certain meta humour to venerating a dead guy because he makes makes fun of the Jesus lovers.

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

This may be the best ever thread at this website.

And it led to the crowning of the three greatest posters in the history of Queenzone. Let us all rejoice.

Preferably in a non-theistic way. [/QUOTE]

Our crowning ceremony should include not just crowns but the entire ensemble.


[/QUOTE]

TQ! Are you going to take this crap? I think bigot #2 just called you a bigot! If you want to explain to her that a bigot cheerleader and enabler is not exactly the same as a fully pledged bigot I'll totally have your back.