Attire for Papal Audience
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:07:49 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
>> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> *Date:* Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:11:25 +0200
>>
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>> > Therefore, the question of whether or not Jews should be given a
>> > special exemption does not arise - there should be no requirement,
>> > and therefore no need for exemptions from that requirement.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> > However, if the church wants to put up a sign saying "Many of our
>> > worshippers feel it is disrespectful for you to wear a hat in here
>> > unless you're Jewish", and leave people to make their own decisions,
>> > I think that would be fine.
>>
>> I agree.
>Mixi, Usually-Sane Poster Agree. 16-page news special inside.
Mixi on Page 3?
--
Martin
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
>> *From:* Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> *Date:* Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:11:25 +0200
>>
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>> > Therefore, the question of whether or not Jews should be given a
>> > special exemption does not arise - there should be no requirement,
>> > and therefore no need for exemptions from that requirement.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> > However, if the church wants to put up a sign saying "Many of our
>> > worshippers feel it is disrespectful for you to wear a hat in here
>> > unless you're Jewish", and leave people to make their own decisions,
>> > I think that would be fine.
>>
>> I agree.
>Mixi, Usually-Sane Poster Agree. 16-page news special inside.
Mixi on Page 3?
--
Martin
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Paypal Audience
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:07:50 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>In article <[email protected] et>,
>[email protected] (No Spam) wrote:
>> *From:* "No Spam" <[email protected]>
>> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:29:20 GMT
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] ups.com...
>> > they made me wear some overpriced paper trousers in the vatican, the
>> > lowering of my shorts didnt fool them.
>>
>> Did they accept cash for the overpriced papal trousers?
>> Did they accept US dollars? Euros? Lire? How about
>> travelers' cheques? Were you allowed to pay for the
>> papal trousers using PayPal?
>And most importantly of all, was there a convenient ATM? (Preferably
>non-smoking and car-free.)
Pickpocket and money/bible belt free?
--
Martin
>In article <[email protected] et>,
>[email protected] (No Spam) wrote:
>> *From:* "No Spam" <[email protected]>
>> *Date:* Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:29:20 GMT
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] ups.com...
>> > they made me wear some overpriced paper trousers in the vatican, the
>> > lowering of my shorts didnt fool them.
>>
>> Did they accept cash for the overpriced papal trousers?
>> Did they accept US dollars? Euros? Lire? How about
>> travelers' cheques? Were you allowed to pay for the
>> papal trousers using PayPal?
>And most importantly of all, was there a convenient ATM? (Preferably
>non-smoking and car-free.)
Pickpocket and money/bible belt free?
--
Martin
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On 15 Aug 2005 22:49:49 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>No Spam wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> >
>> > Mxsmanic wrote:
>> >> [email protected] writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Who cares?
>> >>
>> >> If the eternal fate of your soul before God hinges upon it, you care a
>> >> lot.
>> >
>> > If you believe that to be the case, then yes, I suppose it does.
>> >
>> > I saw a programme on TV recently about obsessive-compulsive disorder.
>> > The behaviours manifested by the patients - arranging all the trash on
>> > the kitchen floor etc - were important to them, too, but I don't see a
>> > lot of value in 3rd parties discussing the logic of them.
>> Were any of them wearing hiking boots and making dozens
>> of obsessive posts about Jewish men's hats in Catholic
>> churches?
>LOL - no, none of them were such extreme cases.
or singing ILKLEY MOOR BA TAT during a high mass?
--
Martin
>No Spam wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected] oups.com...
>> >
>> > Mxsmanic wrote:
>> >> [email protected] writes:
>> >>
>> >> > Who cares?
>> >>
>> >> If the eternal fate of your soul before God hinges upon it, you care a
>> >> lot.
>> >
>> > If you believe that to be the case, then yes, I suppose it does.
>> >
>> > I saw a programme on TV recently about obsessive-compulsive disorder.
>> > The behaviours manifested by the patients - arranging all the trash on
>> > the kitchen floor etc - were important to them, too, but I don't see a
>> > lot of value in 3rd parties discussing the logic of them.
>> Were any of them wearing hiking boots and making dozens
>> of obsessive posts about Jewish men's hats in Catholic
>> churches?
>LOL - no, none of them were such extreme cases.
or singing ILKLEY MOOR BA TAT during a high mass?
--
Martin
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On 15 Aug 2005 22:53:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Martin wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2005 13:17:50 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >they made me wear some overpriced paper trousers in the vatican, the
>> >lowering of my shorts didnt fool them.
>> You can't leave it at that :-)
>That's what they said to him at the time!!
>I'll get my coat.
>And hat...
I'd take my hat off to you, if I had strong religious feeling or wore
one ..
--
Martin
>Martin wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2005 13:17:50 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >they made me wear some overpriced paper trousers in the vatican, the
>> >lowering of my shorts didnt fool them.
>> You can't leave it at that :-)
>That's what they said to him at the time!!
>I'll get my coat.
>And hat...
I'd take my hat off to you, if I had strong religious feeling or wore
one ..
--
Martin
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On 15 Aug 2005 22:58:05 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Timothy Kroesen wrote:
>> Also the hardest way to read what someone is saying as you must dig out
>> each bit of reply by wading through all of what you already read.
>Eh? - what are you talking about?
What he has to do as a top poster in a group monopolised by hat
doffers and bottom posers.
--
Martin
>Timothy Kroesen wrote:
>> Also the hardest way to read what someone is saying as you must dig out
>> each bit of reply by wading through all of what you already read.
>Eh? - what are you talking about?
What he has to do as a top poster in a group monopolised by hat
doffers and bottom posers.
--
Martin
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On 15 Aug 2005 23:02:18 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Carole Allen writes:
>> > Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
>> > clad in one in our courtrooms; shirts are commonly referred to as
>> > "wife-beaters."
>> Why are they inappropriate in courtrooms?
>I'd have though they'd be quite useful - allows the jury to decide on
>guilt without the tiresome business of actually considering the merits
>of the case.
Are shirts out of fashion? When did you stop beating your shirt? [Ed:
on the rocks with the washer women?]
--
Martin
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Carole Allen writes:
>> > Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
>> > clad in one in our courtrooms; shirts are commonly referred to as
>> > "wife-beaters."
>> Why are they inappropriate in courtrooms?
>I'd have though they'd be quite useful - allows the jury to decide on
>guilt without the tiresome business of actually considering the merits
>of the case.
Are shirts out of fashion? When did you stop beating your shirt? [Ed:
on the rocks with the washer women?]
--
Martin
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:20:22 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>> > I note you didn't respond to my point yesterday about whether the Catholic
>> > church is in effect renting Notre Dame or is just being lent it.
>>
>> It is being allowed to use it. No lease agreement exists. I don't
>> know if any type of formal written agreement exists.
>The fromal agreement is the 1905 law itself.
Isn't Fromal a German make of condom?
--
Martin
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>> > I note you didn't respond to my point yesterday about whether the Catholic
>> > church is in effect renting Notre Dame or is just being lent it.
>>
>> It is being allowed to use it. No lease agreement exists. I don't
>> know if any type of formal written agreement exists.
>The fromal agreement is the 1905 law itself.
Isn't Fromal a German make of condom?
--
Martin
#188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
Carole Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's generally a scoop necked, sleeveless t-shirt,, appropriate for
> beachwear, not fine dining. Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
> clad in one in our courtrooms;
You serve gourmet cuisine in your courtrooms? Who knew!
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
pictures at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
> It's generally a scoop necked, sleeveless t-shirt,, appropriate for
> beachwear, not fine dining. Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
> clad in one in our courtrooms;
You serve gourmet cuisine in your courtrooms? Who knew!
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
pictures at http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer
#189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:20:24 +0200, [email protected]
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No Spam writes:
>>
>> > The Jew is not wearing the hat in order to "obey God."
>>
>> Jews wear head coverings to show respect to God.
>Many, many Jews don't care for this. Ever been to Israel?
They all wear helmets now, or what?
>Following your twisted logic, one could ask:
>Christianism as a whole considers fornication a sin. Why should a
>Christian commit sin just to satisfy someone else's desire?
Isn't it normally for the committers pleasure?
--
Martin
(Stanislas de Kertanguy) wrote:
>Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No Spam writes:
>>
>> > The Jew is not wearing the hat in order to "obey God."
>>
>> Jews wear head coverings to show respect to God.
>Many, many Jews don't care for this. Ever been to Israel?
They all wear helmets now, or what?
>Following your twisted logic, one could ask:
>Christianism as a whole considers fornication a sin. Why should a
>Christian commit sin just to satisfy someone else's desire?
Isn't it normally for the committers pleasure?
--
Martin
#190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:56:14 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Carole Allen writes:
>> Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
>> clad in one in our courtrooms; shirts are commonly referred to as
>> "wife-beaters."
>Why are they inappropriate in courtrooms?
What's the connection between shirts and wife beaters?
--
Martin
wrote:
>Carole Allen writes:
>> Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
>> clad in one in our courtrooms; shirts are commonly referred to as
>> "wife-beaters."
>Why are they inappropriate in courtrooms?
What's the connection between shirts and wife beaters?
--
Martin
#191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:41:51 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Carole Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's generally a scoop necked, sleeveless t-shirt,, appropriate for
>> beachwear, not fine dining. Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
>> clad in one in our courtrooms;
>You serve gourmet cuisine in your courtrooms? Who knew!
rte the educational froup!
--
Martin
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>Carole Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's generally a scoop necked, sleeveless t-shirt,, appropriate for
>> beachwear, not fine dining. Defendants often appear (inappropriately)
>> clad in one in our courtrooms;
>You serve gourmet cuisine in your courtrooms? Who knew!
rte the educational froup!
--
Martin
#192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
Martin writes:
> What's the connection between shirts and wife beaters?
Exactly.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
> What's the connection between shirts and wife beaters?
Exactly.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
#193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:36:42 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> What's the connection between shirts and wife beaters?
>Exactly.
Wife beaters wear shirts, therefore all shirt wearers are wife beaters
logic?
--
Martin
wrote:
>Martin writes:
>> What's the connection between shirts and wife beaters?
>Exactly.
Wife beaters wear shirts, therefore all shirt wearers are wife beaters
logic?
--
Martin
#194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:33:04 GMT, Timothy Kroesen wrote:
> There is no one here so fixated in defending their attire as Mixy, even
> as he claims attire means nothing...<g>
>
> Tim K
You've got a point there.
--
Tim C.
> There is no one here so fixated in defending their attire as Mixy, even
> as he claims attire means nothing...<g>
>
> Tim K
You've got a point there.
--
Tim C.
#195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Attire for Papal Audience
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:58:02 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
>.... Otherwise the
> whole policy is badly hypocritical and grossly unfair.
Sounds like the catholic church to me ;-)
--
Tim C.
>.... Otherwise the
> whole policy is badly hypocritical and grossly unfair.
Sounds like the catholic church to me ;-)
--
Tim C.