Martin

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

Martin

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

Martin

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

Martin

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

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

Martin

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

Martin

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

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

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

Martin

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

Martin

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

Martin

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

Mxsmanic

Martin writes:

    > What's the connection between shirts and wife beaters?

Exactly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Martin

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

Tim Challenger

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.

Tim Challenger

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.