[stanz]

I don't know what you mean by my making a connection. I explained what the two types of sex were that were involved in the discussion in this thread- - the stunt that took place at St. Patrick's and the abuse by priests. What else is there to discuss? My very first reply, which was meant to be humorous, compared the two. How is that considered an attack? You know, this all started by my posting that remark. How this grew into an accusation of heresy I don't understand. How people could be so sensitive I don't understand. Like I said originally, I'm going to tune into Jay Leno tonight and get his take on this. I'm sure his comments won't be viewed as an attack upon the church.
Also, I just learned that a joke someone posted on this thread was pulled. Was it so bad that it called for censorship? What has become of us that we can't see some humor in things? No one here is condemning anything- - -except my posts.

[Between the Lines]

I explained what the two types of sex were that were involved in the discussion in this thread- - the stunt that took place at St. Patrick's and the abuse by priests. What else is there to discuss? My very first reply, which was meant to be humorous, compared the two. How is that considered an attack?

Wrong, stanz. Before your first post #15 there was only one type of sex involved with this thread, that of the radio stunt. You were the one who brought the abuse by priests into this discussion. Check it out yourslef.

Also, I just learned that a joke someone posted on this thread was pulled. Was it so bad that it called for censorship?

Yes it was and it was posted to you and you read it and replyed to it telling him that he would be considered a Catholic basher. By your own reply you thought the joke inappropriate . You know how bad the joke was.

What has become of us that we can't see some humor in things?

We are not laughing with you, we are laughing at you.

No one here is condemning anything- - -except my posts.

Wrong again. Almost everyone condemns this sex act inside the church. Read it again. Your posts have been off topic since the begining. This is not a story about the Catholic church nor is it a story about child abuse.

[Askel5]

My very first reply, which was meant to be humorous, compared the two.

I'm missing the humorous part about either. Perhaps you can fill me in since you "get it" and I don't.

I don't know what you mean by my making a connection. I explained what the two types of sex were that were involved in the discussion in this thread- - the stunt that took place at St. Patrick's and the abuse by priests. What else is there to discuss? My very first reply, which was meant to be humorous, compared the two. How is that considered an attack?

That's just it, stanz. The only reason there are "two types of sex" being discussed on this thread is because folks like you (1) are having a little fun with this humorous story about strangers who trespassed in a Catholic Church on the feast of our Lady to fornicate for the fun and giggles of some comic's depraved listeners AND/OR (2) are using the incident to somehow draw a connection between the two types of sex.

I don't get that connection. It's a little hard to believe your waxing all pious about the sanctity of sex when you think this incident's the stuff of which jokes are made.

Have you made it a practice to crack jokes on threads regarding the molestation of young men and boys by homosexual priests? If not, why not?

Will you do so in the future now that you've made a connection between this Funny Sex Incident and the humor inherent in other perverted acts?

[justshe]

Many, myself included, view certain places with reverence and respect. Churches, the White House, most war memorials, etc. By saying you thought the entire act w/commentary being performed in one of those respected places was funny, you degrade that which I, and obviously others, take seriously.

You remind me, a bit, of all those who, during the impeachment, kept up the mantra that it was only about sex and Clinton's personal life was none of our business. You see, to me, it was a personal afront to me that someone would so cheapen an area that I respect, as to use it for his/her own tawdry exploitation--and then have the audacity to lie about it (the real crime).

This radio show is no different. The thrill seekers and the radio station took unfair advantage of OUR sensibilities as to what is RIGHT.......and what is WRONG. And they did it for THEIR own personal gain....at OUR expense. THAT is why some are so upset with you. Because you are defending that which is just plain wrong.