Thread: Fuck you, Dubious Thomas Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027135
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
... for implicitly comparing me to Nazi death camp guards.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Anyhow, for your listening pleasure....
I can't respond to this overture in Purgatory.
Feel free to take it where you deem appropriate....
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
link
Jaysoos, this happens every time you criticize Israel, if you're brave enough to do so -- you get called a Nazi, explicitly or implicitly. Israel can do no wrong, clearly. Go to the link and see how the cowardly Dubious Thomas plays passive aggressive with all comers.
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
Gosh! Now I have something in common with IngoB! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
In case anyone misses it, my "sin" in this case was posting a link to survivors of Bergen Belsen singing "Hatikvah."
Mousethief, in this Paschal Season, I answer your "f-ck you" with a "Bless You!" Is that passive aggressive enough for you?
Christos voskrese!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Pro-tip: if you can't win the argument without (or in this case, even with) bringing up that some of the citizens of the country under discussion were victims of the Nazis then chances are your arguments weren't very strong.
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... for implicitly comparing me to Nazi death camp guards.
Nope. Nothing of the sort. You're seeing an intention that didn't exist.
It's clear that the anti-Israel "meme" of "criticize my criticism of Israel and you're accusing me of antisemitism" has become so strong that any reference to the Holocaust when making the case for Israel is now automatically taken the way you took my reference....
I repeat, no, Mousethief, I was not "implicitly" comparing you to a Nazi death camp guard. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Explicitly, then?
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pro-tip: if you can't win the argument without (or in this case, even with) bringing up that some of the citizens of the country under discussion were victims of the Nazis then chances are your arguments weren't very strong.
For what it's worth, I "won" the argument the moment the gang of you started sputtering and fussing about accusations of antisemitism that hadn't even been made.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I repeat, no, Mousethief, I was not "implicitly" comparing you to a Nazi death camp guard.
Then why the link? What purpose did it serve in the context of that thread other than to inflame?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The Shoa has bugger all to do with how Israelis treat Palestinians (except perhaps as some sort of weird collective PTSD-induced domestic abuse) and certainly cannot be used as a justification for it. Consequently, any use of it in a discussion of the issue is an attempt at deflection using a "victim shield" or an implicit accusation of anti-semitism. Which is it in this case?
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Explicitly, then?
Well, yes, of course, as anyone can see, I wrote: "Mousethief, you're just like a Nazi concentration camp guard!"
You know, tomorrow, it's going to feel especially nice to spend time with my Jewish friends and colleagues, having enjoyed this little taste of anti-Israel hysteria.
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Shoa has bugger all to do with how Israelis treat Palestinians (except perhaps as some sort of weird collective PTSD-induced domestic abuse) and certainly cannot be used as a justification for it. Consequently, any use of it in a discussion of the issue is an attempt at deflection using a "victim shield" or an implicit accusation of anti-semitism. Which is it in this case?
Monday was Yom Hashoah. For Jews, it has anything but "bugger all" to do with the fallout from Secretary Kerry's ill-considered words.
But, don't let the facts stop you from chanting, "You called us antisemites!" so that you won't have to listen to challenges to your Israel-bashing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Explicitly, then?
Well, yes, of course, as anyone can see, I wrote: "Mousethief, you're just like a Nazi concentration camp guard!"
You know, tomorrow, it's going to feel especially nice to spend time with my Jewish friends and colleagues, having enjoyed this little taste of anti-Israel hysteria.
What the Hell does having Jewish friends have to do with what Israel does? I have Jewish friends and colleagues, does that mean we are equally correct?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Israel=Jews=Christians='Murica=God.
Think the former might have some issues, like all countries do, and you're against all of them.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Shoa has bugger all to do with how Israelis treat Palestinians (except perhaps as some sort of weird collective PTSD-induced domestic abuse) and certainly cannot be used as a justification for it. Consequently, any use of it in a discussion of the issue is an attempt at deflection using a "victim shield" or an implicit accusation of anti-semitism. Which is it in this case?
Monday was Yom Hashoah. For Jews, it has anything but "bugger all" to do with the fallout from Secretary Kerry's ill-considered words.
Please explain what the connection is other than a coincidence of the calendar (and since when did criticism of Israel equate to criticism of Jews except in the minds of anti-semites and those trying to accuse others of anti-semitism?). And indeed explain how Kerry was actually wrong.
[ 30. April 2014, 06:27: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then why the link? What purpose did it serve in the context of that thread other than to inflame?
Crickets on this baby. Wonder why.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
this little taste of anti-Israel hysteria.
Suggest that the modern State of Israel isn't behaving properly, and you're exhibiting hysteria. Because it's not possible there is anything at all to criticize about the way Israel is treating the Palestinians in the occupied zones.
There's got to be a name for this logical error or mental illness or whatever it is.
[ 30. April 2014, 08:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Israel=Jews=Christians='Murica=God.
Think the former might have some issues, like all countries do, and you're against all of them.
Even better, The State of Israel=Every Israeli Citizen. I note that fallacy rears its head in one of the ripostes on the linked thread.
Being a resident of a national capital, I know how bloody irritating it is when people can't distinguish you from your government. How many times does "Washington" or "London" or "Canberra" do something, when the people who actually live there haven't actually done it and it was a bunch of politicians that flew in from somewhere and crapped all over the place?
When I criticise 'Israel', I'm almost always criticising the official arms of government of the state of Israel. I've got nothing inherently against a piece of geography.
[ 30. April 2014, 08:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[T]his happens every time you criticize Israel, if you're brave enough to do so.
Whilst I find Thomas and his posting dubious myself, I'm choked by the irony of the suggestion that you need in any way to be "brave" to attack Israel on these boards.
From my own perspective, to defend Israel here puts a poster in a distinctly unpopular minority and therefore generally takes far more courage - which of course does not thereby put such posters in the right on this matter, by any means.
But it's partly the extent to which the defence of Israel puts one under the suspicion of being on the right (politically) that I suspect leads to such opinions being so unpopular. Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel sentiment is virtually a credential of modern liberal identity, and the Ship is, let's face it, a pretty liberal craft.
So let's not kid ourselves that you take much of a reputational risk in being anti-Israel hereabouts, eh?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
But, don't let the facts stop you from chanting, "You called us antisemites!" so that you won't have to listen to challenges to your Israel-bashing.
Okay. I know this is Hell, but here's your chance.
How would you describe the treatment and status of (a)Arab Israelis (b)Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Explicitly, then?
Well, yes, of course, as anyone can see, I wrote: "Mousethief, you're just like a Nazi concentration camp guard!"
You know, tomorrow, it's going to feel especially nice to spend time with my Jewish friends and colleagues, having enjoyed this little taste of anti-Israel hysteria.
Hysteria? I think that bringing up the Nazis is tending towards the inflammatory. You must have known this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
From my own perspective, to defend Israel here puts a poster in a distinctly unpopular minority and therefore generally takes far more courage - which of course does not thereby put such posters in the right on this matter, by any means.
Perhaps this is because no one really mounts a defence of Israel beyond "You're anti-Semites!!!!!!!"
foamdroolfoamsnarldrool
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
So let's not kid ourselves that you take much of a reputational risk in being anti-Israel hereabouts, eh?
Sure, but let's also recognise that one can make criticism of Israel without being anti-Israel.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
No, what?! Are you advocating a rational position?! Oh the shame... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
You're anti-Semitic if you criticize Israel, and look, I just happen to have a recording of music made in a place created by some other anti-Semites. What a coincidence that is!
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The Shoa has bugger all to do with how Israelis treat Palestinians (except perhaps as some sort of weird collective PTSD-induced domestic abuse) and certainly cannot be used as a justification for it.
I agree entirely that the Shoa cannot be used to justify the treatment of Palestinians.
I would, however, contest the statement that it has bugger all to do with the treatment of Palestinians. The recent history of the Jews in Europe has given them first hand experience of being forced from their homes, to be settled into small areas with limited employment opportunities, have movement restricted so they can't visit relatives when they want or move to areas with more employment opportunities, etc. It doesn't excuse the Israeli government from treating Palestinians in the same way Jews were treated in Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Quite the contrary, it makes it even more dispicable that they inflict the same evils on the Palestinians.
And, of course, it wasn't just Nazi Germany. The Russians weren't much better, the French and British were hardly sympathetic to the plight of Jews until the outbreak of war. The South African government practiced similar policies against the non-European people there. Our history has given us a vocabulary associated with government policies that treat some people as inferior, justifying inhuman treatment and government sanctioned violence (physical, but also economic and cultural) against them. We have words like pogrom, ghetto, apartheid, bantustan. And, IMO, if the actions that those words are associated with are repeated it's entirely reasonable to use those words again in the new situation.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[T]his happens every time you criticize Israel, if you're brave enough to do so.
Whilst I find Thomas and his posting dubious myself, I'm choked by the irony of the suggestion that you need in any way to be "brave" to attack Israel on these boards.
From my own perspective, to defend Israel here puts a poster in a distinctly unpopular minority and therefore generally takes far more courage - which of course does not thereby put such posters in the right on this matter, by any means.
But it's partly the extent to which the defence of Israel puts one under the suspicion of being on the right (politically) that I suspect leads to such opinions being so unpopular. Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel sentiment is virtually a credential of modern liberal identity, and the Ship is, let's face it, a pretty liberal craft.
So let's not kid ourselves that you take much of a reputational risk in being anti-Israel hereabouts, eh?
There's a lot of difference between Israelis, the modern state of Israel and the policies of the current government of that state. A relation (by marriage) is an Israeli citizen, albeit a reluctant one as his family home is in East Jerusalem which has been Israeli occupied since 1967. His family is Christian but, having seen the way his people have been treated by the predominantly Christian United States of American, he on the verge of converting to Islam.
It's difficult to defend Israeli government policy, especially one that has been in effect for nearly fifty years under successive governments of different parties and leaders.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
From my own perspective, to defend Israel here puts a poster in a distinctly unpopular minority and therefore generally takes far more courage - which of course does not thereby put such posters in the right on this matter, by any means.
Perhaps this is because no one really mounts a defence of Israel beyond "You're anti-Semites!!!!!!!"
foamdroolfoamsnarldrool
Aye, there's the rub.
There are things that the State of Israel does that even its closest friends can't sincerely defend beyond a kind of embarrassed shuffle while looking at the ground.
I mean, when the United States ends up having to find ways of telling the Israeli authorities that they've acted unwisely, things are getting pretty serious. I doubt any country has a stronger track record of supporting Israel than the US.
Bringing out the anti-Semite card is frequently a diversionary tactic. It's designed to avoid talking about the actual issues - things that SHOULD be issues regardless of the race or the religion of the people doing it. Being 'Semitic' (a pretty poor misnomer, really, given the people on the other side of Israel's fights) isn't justification for being treated more negatively than anyone else, but neither is it justification for being treated more POSITIVELY than anyone else. It isn't a get-out-of-jail card for unacceptable behaviour.
[ 30. April 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then why the link? What purpose did it serve in the context of that thread other than to inflame?
Crickets on this baby. Wonder why.
Um ... 'cause it was something in the neighborhood of 1:00 in the friggin' morning my time, and I decided I should go to bed and get some sleep....
Apologies for not staying up all night arguing with you!
But, indeed, I should have taken the time to explain the point of the link, because you so clearly had completely misunderstood it. But, as the thread about Kerry and "apartheid" had "developed" during the time I had given to it, I had become quite "tired," in all the senses of that word. So, I didn't bother.
Here's my explanation....
YOU first raised the issue of Zionism by using the pejorative label "pro-Zionist" to dismiss an argument. YOU ran up the anti-Zionist colors. So, I responded accordingly.
Originally, I was going to post Barbra Streisand singing Hatikvah, but decided that was too "gay" even for me! So, I opted for something more serious to make my point, which was very simple: Zionism is about Jewish love for their ancestral homeland, and anti-Zionism spits on that love.
Mousethief, if you want to be an anti-Zionist, be my guest. But don't expect me to pat you on the head and tell you how sweet and nice that makes you....
For your further listening pleasure (with lots of pictures of Jews who would happily kick your ass, if you gave them an opportunity),
And this has stood fast for our ancestors and for us. For not just one person has risen up against us to destroy us .... But the Holy One, Blessed is He, rescued us from their hand. (From the Passover Haggadah)
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hysteria? I think that bringing up the Nazis is tending towards the inflammatory. You must have known this.
Oh, PU-LEEZ! I didn't "bring up the Nazis." I never mentioned them. I posted a video of survivors of Bergen Belsen singing Hatikvah, to make a necessary point about anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is directed against the love and hope that gave those walking corpses the strength to sing that song. If that fact hits close to home, so be it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
In what sense does the loves and hopes of one group of people, no matter how apallingly treated, trump the loves and hopes of another? By what right does one group of people hoping for a land of their own turf out another group of people from the homes and farms they were brought up in? What about the hopes of Palestinians to eat the fruit of the orchards and olive groves planted by their parents and grandparents? What about the love Palestinians have for the homes they were born and raised in?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I didn't "bring up the Nazis." I never mentioned them. I posted a video of survivors of Bergen Belsen singing Hatikvah,
Yeah, and what in the WORLD does Bergen Belsen have to do with the Nazis?
Do you really believe the shit your mouth spews?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Originally, I was going to post Barbra Streisand singing Hatikvah, but decided that was too "gay" even for me!
Wow. Isn't one shovel enough for you?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hysteria? I think that bringing up the Nazis is tending towards the inflammatory. You must have known this.
Oh, PU-LEEZ! I didn't "bring up the Nazis." I never mentioned them. I posted a video of survivors of Bergen Belsen singing Hatikvah, to make a necessary point about anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is directed against the love and hope that gave those walking corpses the strength to sing that song. If that fact hits close to home, so be it.
I don't really believe this. You post a film of people in a Nazi death-camp, in the middle of a discussion about Israel, and this is a 'necessary point about anti-Zionism'. The trouble is, you are using English words, in a certain order, but they no longer make sense. You are either very very naive or very very stupid, or you are deliberately inflaming people. Israel doesn't need enemies with friends like you.
Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You are either very very naive or very very stupid....
Probably both....
And also very busy with a real life in which I'm paid to be neither naive nor stupid....
So, I think this will be "it" for me here. I really did need a "push" to focus on the right priorities, and this "debacle" has provided it.
Special thanks to Mousethief!
(Yeah, I think this is what's affectionately called a "flounce"! ... Feel free to imagine me skipping gayly over the side of the Ship after I have taken care of one more item of business!)
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
This is a "debacle"?
Time to start re-writing the dictionary again ...
[ETA: it would, of course, help in rewriting a dictionary if I could spell the word!]
[ 30. April 2014, 15:54: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This is a "debacle"?
Time to start re-writing the dictionary again ...
[ETA: it would, of course, help in rewriting a dictionary if I could spell the word!]
No, no, no. Note DT's generous sprinkling of scare quotes, intended, apparently, to disabuse us of any mistaken assumptions about his/her sincerity on any given point. Or something.
What's needed here is an altogether different dictionary: the scare quotes version.
[ 30. April 2014, 16:26: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I'm tempted to say 'fuck' 'off' 'then'.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I don't know. Can we keep the scare quotes off of the word off? Wherever he fucks, and however he fucks, I'd love it if he'd stay off. I have to deal with people in real life who remind me of dubious thomas, and I would be quite pleased to not have to read him again here.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This is a "debacle"?
Time to start re-writing the dictionary again ...
de·ba·cle
diˈbakəl,-ˈbäkəl/
noun
Meaning: One cannot defend one's position so then leaves pretending the moral high ground.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
lilBuddha - you forgot the "again" in that definition. Not the first time we've been here with this poster
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't know. Can we keep the scare quotes off of the word off? Wherever he fucks, and however he fucks, I'd love it if he'd stay off. I have to deal with people in real life who remind me of dubious thomas, and I would be quite pleased to not have to read him again here.
In fact, I rarely discuss Israel these days online, as invariably, some tosser comes along and makes the conflation: criticism of Israel = anti-Israel = anti-Semitism = Nazi death camps. And then there is no point in trying to argue about it, as they just produce more fallacies, until you are drowning in them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Scare Quotes Dictionary.
I feel a Heaven thread coming on.
But, first maybe discuss whether we need to include "gone"? Is it supposed to scare us that he's "gone"? Or, is it a threat that he isn't "gone" that's supposed to have us quaking in our boots?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The flouncers usually come back, don't they? They miss the feeling of being misunderstood (known as the angry martyr syndrome).
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Zionism is about Jewish love for their ancestral homeland, and anti-Zionism spits on that love.
Why should politics be based on "feelings"?
I don't begrudge Jews loving their homeland. But does "loving their homeland" entitle them to special rights and privileges over and against Palestinians who have lived in the same land for generations?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
He may be gone from this thread, but couldn't resist taking a swipe at me on IngoB's thread. His grudge lives on.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
It's okay. We now have an injunction (in Hebrew, no less, readable only inside Kerygmania) commanding divine wrath upon us for trying to destroy Jerusalem. 'Cause, you know, criticizing the policy of a certain country is exactly the same as wishing for its destruction and the death of its people. Lord only knows what that means I want for the US and the various states I've lived in, given how many opinions I've had over their policies. Surprised we haven't fallen into the Lake of Fire or something by now.
Man. Gotta love the conflation of the modern state of Israel with the Biblical Kingdoms. It's almost better than Mussolini conflating the Kingdom of Italy with the Roman Empire!
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
...And also very busy with a real life in which I'm paid to be neither naive nor stupid...
...but you manage it anyway.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Actually what winds the shit out of me more than anything else about DT is his determination to refer to the word "fuck" as "dropping an F-bomb." Quite aside from the "what are we, eight years old?" element of this, there's something seriously fucking fucked up about this fucking term. If you're so puritanical about language that you'd rather use a term that draws a parallel between a swear word and a weapon of mass destruction that can wipe out life on earth (yes, I know - H bomb is a different letter - big fucking deal) then you really can fuck all the way off.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
You could have A-bomb ... and F is between A and H.
Anyway, he has (apparently) already fucked off.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
The "scare quotes" thread is here.
I'm not sure whether we need this thread now that Dubious Thomas has flounced; I'll confer with Hosts and Admins behind the scenes.
Sioni Sais
Friendly Hellhost
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Dubious Thomas, a douche? Holy shit, alert the media.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
The PTB have conferred and you'll be pleased to hear that this thread is staying open. For now.
Sioni Sais
Hellhost
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Yay! Well, given he did not put up a decent argument when he was participating.....
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Since Hell threads can run on for pages without the guest of honor ever showing up, it doesn't make sense to close one just because the guest of honor showed up, made a fool of himself, then flounced.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Normally I would say it is more interesting to have a thread when the subject is participating, but given the level of his ability to defend his point, perhaps not so much on this thread.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Since Hell threads can run on for pages without the guest of honor ever showing up, it doesn't make sense to close one just because the guest of honor showed up, made a fool of himself, then flounced.
Maybe not, but it is traditional. I used to do it all the time back when I was Hellhosting.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Since Hell threads can run on for pages without the guest of honor ever showing up, it doesn't make sense to close one just because the guest of honor showed up, made a fool of himself, then flounced.
Maybe not, but it is traditional. I used to do it all the time back when I was Hellhosting.
If anything is traditional in Hell, then it is capricious Hellhosting. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Oh, don't worry. Somehow, I think the Dubious One may be hiding out, watching quietly, waiting ever-so-patiently for Divine Fire to consume us all.
Come to think of it, I did have to turn on the fan today...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Divine Fire? Over here in my part of the world I could do with a bit of warmth. The weather has turned, and the weekend's set to be worse. I know some Shipmates would think 11 degrees C was pleasantly balmy, but I was enjoying 20 degrees regularly a couple of weeks ago.
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
Dub.tom wrote-
Here's a picture of some bishops at Lambeth 2008. Surely not a single one of them is an English bishop who sits in the house of Lords -- not even the rather homely female bishops on the far right and far left sides of the photo-group.... [Big Grin]
Speaking to the rather homely females of any occupation: Do not despair. Even Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had no beauty that we would admire, or praise Him for.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
wotthehell? Since when does homeliness (or lack of it) have anything to do with a bishop's job?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Since women became bishops. Duh! Because women's primary task of decorating the world is never superseded by other callings.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
I think it was a joke. If you follow the link in question here you will see that the people at the ends of the picture are men.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
[slaps self] Oh, of course. Where have my wits gone begging?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0