July 06, 2006
Everyone Has AIDS!
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Celebs imitating Team America: World Police imitating caricatures of celebs. The response to HIV/AIDS has gone from tragic to beyond surreal. I see these signs up all over Los Angeles. I've been trying to figure out their purpose. Do these people really believe that Americans want people to die from AIDS?
Saying we should find a cure for AIDS is like saying we should find a cure for malaria. Who could possibly be against it?
A public campaign orchestrated by Kenneth Cole aimed at convincing the public that celebrities feel worse about AIDS than every one else maybe?
Because you selfish bastards don't really care about AIDS as long as there isn't a cure.
I, for one, welcome our new caring celebrity overlords.
I do not have AIDS. I do, however, wish we could all have AIDES.
Will Smith has AIDS.
Rosie O'Donell has AIDS.
Nelson Mandela has AIDS.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has AIDS.
Sir Elton John has AIDS.
Richard Gere has AIDS.
Sharon Stone has AIDS.
Ashley Judd has AIDS.
Whoopi Goldberg has AIDS.
Harry Belafonte has AIDS.
Tom Hanks has AIDS.
I proclaim today national AIDS joke day. Because AIDS is funny. South Park told me so.
PS-Consider this a vacation post.
Posted by: Rusty at
02:46 PM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Perhaps the ad would be a wee bit more effective if they put someone in the ad that actually HAS AIDS? Magic Johnson comes to mind.
Posted by: Mark at July 06, 2006 02:55 PM (UN2Uu)
2
Doctor: "Your wife either has Alzheimers or AIDS."
Husband: "How can we find out which?"
Doctor: "I need you to run a little experiment this weekend. Take your wife to a park and leave her there. If she finds her way home; dont have sex with her."
Husband: "How can we find out which?"
Doctor: "I need you to run a little experiment this weekend. Take your wife to a park and leave her there. If she finds her way home; dont have sex with her."
Posted by: Rusty at July 06, 2006 03:04 PM (h/402)
3
What an odd ad campaign. What a waste of money that could have been used for something useful... like AIDS research.
Posted by: HD Wanderer at July 06, 2006 03:12 PM (nA9AR)
4
Proving once again that it's simply impossible to parody Liberals.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 03:21 PM (8e/V4)
5
HD, this, like anything else lefturds espouse, isn't about the actual problem, it's about creating public awareness, which can then be channeled into serving a political agenda. If the lefturds really cared about stopping the AIDS epidemic, there are many ways they could help, but they really just care about promoting their agenda; one world government. See how they cleverly take a disease that mainly effects a few high-risk groups, and implicate everyone else as being at equal risk, and therefore responsibility? It's all about the socialism with these idiots.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 06, 2006 03:25 PM (v3I+x)
6
"What an odd ad campaign. What a waste of money that could have been used for something useful... like AIDS research."
Indeed, but the group who put this out has an advertising budget and if they don't spend it, they won't get it next quarter. Now as to why they have an advertising budget, I can see the reasoning, but I do agree the money could have been better suited used as something else. Unfortunately though, these scientific labs who hire advocacy groups feel they need to advertise in such ways. Why, I don't know. As Rusty wrote, a cure for AIDS? Well, yeah, that would be nice.
Indeed, but the group who put this out has an advertising budget and if they don't spend it, they won't get it next quarter. Now as to why they have an advertising budget, I can see the reasoning, but I do agree the money could have been better suited used as something else. Unfortunately though, these scientific labs who hire advocacy groups feel they need to advertise in such ways. Why, I don't know. As Rusty wrote, a cure for AIDS? Well, yeah, that would be nice.
Posted by: Chad Evans at July 06, 2006 03:28 PM (+0rMT)
7
So I'm supposed to feel guilty because two other people I don't even know engaged in unsafe sex, and one transmitted a disease to another. I'm guilty why? Because my church says you shouldn't do that gay sex stuff? And I'm the problem? Huh...
Posted by: XBradTC at July 06, 2006 03:41 PM (JYMV6)
8
I think the largest groups at risk for AIDS right now are women who have sex with infected men (whether from drugs or homosexual contact) and drug users themselves. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone with AIDS, regardless of how they got it. We don't tell people with lung cancer--ha ha, shouldn't have smoked, idiot, do we?
And Brad, what do you think Christ's message to people with AIDS would be? Tough luck about the gay sex, now die?
And Brad, what do you think Christ's message to people with AIDS would be? Tough luck about the gay sex, now die?
Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 05:12 PM (aqTJB)
9
>>>We don't tell people with lung cancer--ha ha, shouldn't have smoked, idiot, do we?
Not to their faces. Jesus would show compassion for AIDS victims, but he also told sinner to go and sin no more. And for that you Libs would have called him a hateful bigot.
Not to their faces. Jesus would show compassion for AIDS victims, but he also told sinner to go and sin no more. And for that you Libs would have called him a hateful bigot.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 05:26 PM (8e/V4)
10
It isn't clear to me that Jesus considered homosexuality a sin. St. Paul, maybe. The Yahweh of the OT, sure. But Jesus had a lot to say, and in all that, he never once criticized homosexual conduct, which was probably pretty widespread given the, uh, penetration of Greek culture in the region Remember, some of the gospels were written in Greek, the high cultural language of the day. Both Greeks and Romans were comparatively tolerant of homosexuality, as were a number of the Semitic and non-semitic cultures at the time. Thus, we can be certain that Jesus knew of it...and yet he never once commented on it, as far as we know. This guy, who found time to attack adultery, and a host of other activities...never mentioned it. I wonder why?
I don't call modern Christians bigots for believing that homosexuality is wrong. I do call them bigots when they vote for things that would deny health benefits to children of gay partners, as is happening in Virginia and other states.
And remember--the Bible was used, for decades, as a support for slavery. They took the Noah story, and then took all the passages approving of slavery and said, see--Jesus had no problem with slavery. A better reader of the Bible saw the deeper truth...
Jesse Helms used to use the bible to support segregation on the air in NC...when he was NC's Rush Limbaugh before he became a senator.
I don't call modern Christians bigots for believing that homosexuality is wrong. I do call them bigots when they vote for things that would deny health benefits to children of gay partners, as is happening in Virginia and other states.
And remember--the Bible was used, for decades, as a support for slavery. They took the Noah story, and then took all the passages approving of slavery and said, see--Jesus had no problem with slavery. A better reader of the Bible saw the deeper truth...
Jesse Helms used to use the bible to support segregation on the air in NC...when he was NC's Rush Limbaugh before he became a senator.
Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 05:44 PM (aqTJB)
11
jd,
Jesus said nothing about pedophilia or child sacrifice either. Proves nothing. He was silent precisely because he had no need to repeat himself or teach them something new on the matter. He had every opportunity to correct them, and he didn't. If Jesus believed homosexuality was ok, he would have told people so, given their views. Christians read the Bible in it's entirety, and nothing in it condones homosexuality. On the contrary. If you don't agree with the Bible, fine. But don't try to hijack it.
The fact is, christians the world over and throughout history DO believe their views on homosexuality are biblically-based. And that's why they hold their views on homosexuality, not because they're hateful bigots. In fact, I wish the Bible wasn't as explicit about homosexuality. I don't hate gays, and it would really simplify things. But your Liberal attempts to label folks as bigots is nothing but scare tactics and political maneuvering. I don't personally don't know any conservative christians who hate gays, but they simply cannot deny God's word. Period.
Jesus said nothing about pedophilia or child sacrifice either. Proves nothing. He was silent precisely because he had no need to repeat himself or teach them something new on the matter. He had every opportunity to correct them, and he didn't. If Jesus believed homosexuality was ok, he would have told people so, given their views. Christians read the Bible in it's entirety, and nothing in it condones homosexuality. On the contrary. If you don't agree with the Bible, fine. But don't try to hijack it.
The fact is, christians the world over and throughout history DO believe their views on homosexuality are biblically-based. And that's why they hold their views on homosexuality, not because they're hateful bigots. In fact, I wish the Bible wasn't as explicit about homosexuality. I don't hate gays, and it would really simplify things. But your Liberal attempts to label folks as bigots is nothing but scare tactics and political maneuvering. I don't personally don't know any conservative christians who hate gays, but they simply cannot deny God's word. Period.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 05:58 PM (8e/V4)
12
Homosexuals are deviants. They are given over to a repropate mind.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 06, 2006 06:37 PM (D2g/j)
13
Can't you guys take a break for a sec and realize just how FUNNY this whole thing is?
Posted by: Rusty at July 06, 2006 07:38 PM (HdEeR)
14
Q: What's the hardest part about learning you have AIDS?
A: Trying to explain to your parents that you're Haitian.
A: Trying to explain to your parents that you're Haitian.
Posted by: This is just a joke at July 06, 2006 07:49 PM (utJ4A)
15
Rusty,
are you kidding me? I've been singing the Everybody Has AIDS song all day long. I can't get it out of my head. lol!
Everybody has AIDS! AIDS, AIDS, AIDS! AIDS!
are you kidding me? I've been singing the Everybody Has AIDS song all day long. I can't get it out of my head. lol!
Everybody has AIDS! AIDS, AIDS, AIDS! AIDS!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 07:56 PM (8e/V4)
16
My father (AIDS!)
My sister (AIDS!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades
Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has
AIDS! x 20
My sister (AIDS!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades
Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has
AIDS! x 20
Posted by: Rusty at July 06, 2006 08:26 PM (HdEeR)
17
Hmm...this is all very silly to me, and ineffective. A waste of talent, money and energy. Typical liberal effort, with apologies to jd.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 06, 2006 08:35 PM (rUyw4)
18
OK, but Jesus also had nothing to say about a number of the other restrictions announced in leviticus. Are they still in effect?
And surely you aren't serious about saying that anyone who tolerates of or approves homosexuality isn't a Christian? That's one possible reading of your words, so I hope it's not the accurate one.
I actually didn't think the Team America movie was as good as the first South Park movie...although Everyone Has Aids was damn funny.
And surely you aren't serious about saying that anyone who tolerates of or approves homosexuality isn't a Christian? That's one possible reading of your words, so I hope it's not the accurate one.
I actually didn't think the Team America movie was as good as the first South Park movie...although Everyone Has Aids was damn funny.
Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 10:43 PM (DQYHA)
19
You know, Rusty, if you go to the website, it lists all kinds of charities all over the world that are working on this terrible problem. Is it so wrong that they made you look at billboards? There is still a stigma associated with having AIDS, even in America. Will a t-shirt solve that? Will a billboard? Well, it'll make a few people think. Beyond the stigma, the campaign will make a few hundred volunteer for one of these charities. It will raise a few million for the people who don't have health insurance who have AIDS. What is so wrong with this?
However, it is jarring to see that with this massive ad budget, and this professional website, they still have "people Effected by AIDS". One of its effects is apparently poor grammar...
However, it is jarring to see that with this massive ad budget, and this professional website, they still have "people Effected by AIDS". One of its effects is apparently poor grammar...
Posted by: jd at July 06, 2006 11:39 PM (DQYHA)
20
>>>are they still in effect?
jd,
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law not to destroy it. He also said that not one iota of the Law would pass away until the end of the world. So according to Jesus, yes, they are still in effect. Peter seemed to say the same thing. Messianic Jews believe that. We don't stone adulterers anymore because Jesus took that upon himself. He paid that price. The laws are still there. But Paul is interpreted as giving gentiles leniency from the Biblical dietary codes, etc. I myself have problems with that interpretation, but it has 2,000 years of history behind it, so who am I to argue.
jd,
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law not to destroy it. He also said that not one iota of the Law would pass away until the end of the world. So according to Jesus, yes, they are still in effect. Peter seemed to say the same thing. Messianic Jews believe that. We don't stone adulterers anymore because Jesus took that upon himself. He paid that price. The laws are still there. But Paul is interpreted as giving gentiles leniency from the Biblical dietary codes, etc. I myself have problems with that interpretation, but it has 2,000 years of history behind it, so who am I to argue.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 11:46 PM (8e/V4)
21
jd,
you can tolerate homosexuality and be a good christian, but not if you accept it. Christians who accept homosexuality show ignorance of their own religion. Tolerating it is simply living and letting live, but accepting it is embracing it as good. That's not biblical.
you can tolerate homosexuality and be a good christian, but not if you accept it. Christians who accept homosexuality show ignorance of their own religion. Tolerating it is simply living and letting live, but accepting it is embracing it as good. That's not biblical.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 11:54 PM (8e/V4)
22
Carlos--this is very helpful. Now, let's see if I understand it by analogy:
Two Christians meet. One says, I believe the Bible reflects not only the story of God's only son dying for our sins, but also some of the prejudices and beliefs of the Hebrew people at that time, as reflected through the scribes and those who approved the myriad versions of the various gospels and epistles. Thus, I don't think that the anti-homosexual language in the OT and the NT reflects what Jesus believed. But I do believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, and none shall come to the father save through him (ie, he's born again).
The other Christian says: I respect your views, but in my opinion, the Bible is what the Bible is. It is the Holy Word of God, the One word of truth.
Is the former person a Christian?
(and if you say no, believe me, I have a follow up!)
Two Christians meet. One says, I believe the Bible reflects not only the story of God's only son dying for our sins, but also some of the prejudices and beliefs of the Hebrew people at that time, as reflected through the scribes and those who approved the myriad versions of the various gospels and epistles. Thus, I don't think that the anti-homosexual language in the OT and the NT reflects what Jesus believed. But I do believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, and none shall come to the father save through him (ie, he's born again).
The other Christian says: I respect your views, but in my opinion, the Bible is what the Bible is. It is the Holy Word of God, the One word of truth.
Is the former person a Christian?
(and if you say no, believe me, I have a follow up!)
Posted by: jd at July 07, 2006 12:02 AM (DQYHA)
23
How sick you people really are!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Falcon at July 07, 2006 12:55 AM (6Uk/n)
24
jd,
if you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and saviour, that makes you a christian. But if you don't believe the Bible is innerrant, then it's useless to talk about it. It's one of those, oh well agree to disagree type of things.
if you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and saviour, that makes you a christian. But if you don't believe the Bible is innerrant, then it's useless to talk about it. It's one of those, oh well agree to disagree type of things.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 07, 2006 08:54 AM (8e/V4)
25
Maybe the campaign is implying that Mandela, Stone and friends had a big orgie before the shoot?
Posted by: Ed Banky at July 07, 2006 10:09 AM (X9LlJ)
26
Aids: Nature's way of culling out future problems.
Poor JD. Afraid his muslim boy friend will give him aids.
If he hasn't already.
Poor JD. Afraid his muslim boy friend will give him aids.
If he hasn't already.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 07, 2006 10:12 AM (Cha30)
27
Maybe the campaign is implying that Mandela, Stone and friends had a big orgie before the shoot?
Posted by: Ed Banky at July 07, 2006 10:14 AM (X9LlJ)
28
A Christian by definition believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
Posted by: YBP at July 07, 2006 02:25 PM (gZnyq)
29
Wow. I'm inspired. What a great bunch of people in that ad! Truly. I'm moved. I had no idea all those people had AIDS.
Did anyone else order the shirt yet?
Did anyone else order the shirt yet?
Posted by: thirdee at July 07, 2006 04:51 PM (lm+0X)
30
JD, exhibiting his monumental ignorance, wrote: It isn't clear to me that Jesus considered homosexuality a sin.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Now wasn't homosexuality a sin under the Law? Why yes it was!
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The fact is that the Law is starting to sound like a pretty good idea, considering the level of depravity to which our society has fallen.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Now wasn't homosexuality a sin under the Law? Why yes it was!
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The fact is that the Law is starting to sound like a pretty good idea, considering the level of depravity to which our society has fallen.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 09, 2006 09:48 AM (v3I+x)
31
OK,then, let's look at what else is banned in leviticus:
Mixing different types of fabric.
Violating the entirety of kosher dietary laws.
Having sex with a woman during her period.
Sitting on something that a woman sat on during her period.
Cooking by a woman having her period.
You tell me you abide by those, and I'll accept that you have a biblically inspired, not bigoted reason for hating homosexuality. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
Mixing different types of fabric.
Violating the entirety of kosher dietary laws.
Having sex with a woman during her period.
Sitting on something that a woman sat on during her period.
Cooking by a woman having her period.
You tell me you abide by those, and I'll accept that you have a biblically inspired, not bigoted reason for hating homosexuality. Otherwise, shut your pie hole.
Posted by: jd at July 09, 2006 11:06 AM (DQYHA)
32
JD: Theologians have always made a distinction between disciplines created by a religion's human leaders for its members and revealed Divine Law. The former can me modified for whatever reason (e.g., in modern times, the amount of time Catholics should fast before Communion), while the latter can never be altered.
Posted by: YBP at July 09, 2006 11:35 AM (gZnyq)
33
Yup, theologians have done that, and their decisions have been remarkably consistent with the prejudices of the day. What is god-revealed and mandatory to one generation is, with the shifting of culture, simply voluntary and man-created.
For example, the admonition against masturbation in Leviticus was once taught as mandatory, God-revealed truth. Now, all except the most conservative Christians spend very little time campaigning against masturbation, because the rest of the culture would laugh at them, and they would lose members.
Ditto for divorce. It used to be absolutely anathema, forbidden by the Bible. Remember the scene in the new Cash movie, where the bigoted bitch in the drug store goes up to June Carter Cash and rakes her over the coals for the "sin" of being divorced? Well, our fundies today don't do that, because so many Americans (tithing Americans!) are divorced, or will be. Someday, the fundies who today believe that gay marriage is banned by God will adjust their views. Or, those still in their churches will. It is almost, but not quite, inevitable. It is also possible that we will have a resurgence of stricter sexual morality. The evidence from the youngest generation is mixed. they are less sexuality active, but more sexually open. Less inhibited, but less promiscuous. And VERY very pro-gay rights. Even fundy kids are far more pro gay rights than previous young fundies.
For example, the admonition against masturbation in Leviticus was once taught as mandatory, God-revealed truth. Now, all except the most conservative Christians spend very little time campaigning against masturbation, because the rest of the culture would laugh at them, and they would lose members.
Ditto for divorce. It used to be absolutely anathema, forbidden by the Bible. Remember the scene in the new Cash movie, where the bigoted bitch in the drug store goes up to June Carter Cash and rakes her over the coals for the "sin" of being divorced? Well, our fundies today don't do that, because so many Americans (tithing Americans!) are divorced, or will be. Someday, the fundies who today believe that gay marriage is banned by God will adjust their views. Or, those still in their churches will. It is almost, but not quite, inevitable. It is also possible that we will have a resurgence of stricter sexual morality. The evidence from the youngest generation is mixed. they are less sexuality active, but more sexually open. Less inhibited, but less promiscuous. And VERY very pro-gay rights. Even fundy kids are far more pro gay rights than previous young fundies.
Posted by: jd at July 09, 2006 01:32 PM (DQYHA)
34
jd: Yes, many churches try to be popular and are thus doomed to failure.
The Catholic Church still teaches that masturbation is always wrong and that divorce is permisable under certain circumstances if the marriage is deemed valid, although in these cases, remarriage is not allowed.
The Church also teaches that all humans have dignity anre should be loved, but that homosexual acts, just like out-of-marriage heterosexual activity, are morally wrong. I find it odd how so many people who scream about the evils of homosexuality have very little to say about this latter issue.
The Catholic Church still teaches that masturbation is always wrong and that divorce is permisable under certain circumstances if the marriage is deemed valid, although in these cases, remarriage is not allowed.
The Church also teaches that all humans have dignity anre should be loved, but that homosexual acts, just like out-of-marriage heterosexual activity, are morally wrong. I find it odd how so many people who scream about the evils of homosexuality have very little to say about this latter issue.
Posted by: YBP at July 09, 2006 02:19 PM (gZnyq)
35
I don't find it odd at all. The Catholic Church is doing exactly what I described above. If they had stuck to their guns about masturbation and divorce and premarital sex, they'd lose so many followers they'd be a fifth of their size. Same thing happens with Baptists, or any religion, really. It can occupy the right side of the popular beliefs, but it cannot occupy the extreme, and still be popular. Of course, as you adjust to the popular will, you'll lose some schismatically minded followers, and sometimes you'll gauge it wrong, and end up like certain mainstream churches currently, but churches have to move with the times. Always have. They'll deny it, but it becomes more and more obvious as you extend the time span of your examination. Look at what was "unholy" in 1500 and look at today. Case closed.
Oh, and if the Catholics oppose masturbation, they do so today VERY quietly. It's a pro-forma opposition, it's nothing like it was 50 years ago.
Oh, and if the Catholics oppose masturbation, they do so today VERY quietly. It's a pro-forma opposition, it's nothing like it was 50 years ago.
Posted by: jd at July 09, 2006 10:12 PM (DQYHA)
36
jd: Any Catholic Q&A book STILL officially opposes all of the things I mentioned above. There might be some gutless people within the Church's ranks who don't want to preach about these things, but I've encountered many priests who still do.
And then there are other churches...
And then there are other churches...
Posted by: YBP at July 10, 2006 09:59 AM (gZnyq)
37
Hate to press you, YBP, but the Catholic League for Decency used to make a field day out of going after any film that referenced masturbation or illicit sex. And they used to have top bishop support. Can you imagine how many Catholics would recoil in embarrassment if they went after masturbation references on television today, let alone movies like American Pie? I don't think many priests are preaching against masturbation from the pulpit today, and I very much doubt it is part of many, if any, sunday school classes, as it was back when. Face it, the holy mother church, just like those "other churchs" picks its battles with an eye on what the people will accept. Unholy yesterday, tolerated today, accepted tomorrow. Just like baptists and interracial marriage, which used to be scripturally banned.
Posted by: jd at July 10, 2006 12:30 PM (12Jpa)
38
jd: I teach CCD (Sunday school), and the book used, within the Diocese, published by Loyala, explicitely rails against a variety of sexual sins, including the old m. word. And this was a fifth gerade class!
I wholeheartedly agree that many a sermon today is on the touchy-feely side, but I maintain that the Church officially, although not as loudly as She should, denounces things like masturbation. Check Fr. Stravinskas' (of Our Sunday Visitor fame) very recent Q$A book. Oddly, the Q&A books I have dating from the 40's don't even adddress the matter, although missals printed in the 50's and up to today mention "impure acts against self" in things to ponder on the way to the confessional.
In search of newer posts...
I wholeheartedly agree that many a sermon today is on the touchy-feely side, but I maintain that the Church officially, although not as loudly as She should, denounces things like masturbation. Check Fr. Stravinskas' (of Our Sunday Visitor fame) very recent Q$A book. Oddly, the Q&A books I have dating from the 40's don't even adddress the matter, although missals printed in the 50's and up to today mention "impure acts against self" in things to ponder on the way to the confessional.
In search of newer posts...
Posted by: YBP at July 10, 2006 01:09 PM (gZnyq)
39
You know more about this than I do. Sounds like you were right and I was wrong.
Posted by: jd at July 11, 2006 06:51 AM (DQYHA)
51kb generated in CPU 0.0143, elapsed 0.0296 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0205 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0205 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
