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.
This started out as a story about a prank which I answered with a joke. Everybody went off the deep end because they did not find humor in it. That resulted in my being flamed. Now, ordinarily, flaming I can take. But these were accusations that I attacked the church which I did not do.
So, I responded to these accusations. I still don't understand why everyone was so inflamed. I did not condone what was done. I compared it to what was done by priests. That was the truth. I don't think either abuse by priests or what was done at St. Patrick's should be condoned. I said that earlier. Other than explaining the same facts over and over again, I don't know what else there is to say.