Armed activists show up to library and demand they ban books

[Harbal]

Sorry, is that your wife in the picture?

Why are you so intent on reinforcing your reputation as a dick head?

[Walker]

Sorry, is that your wife in the picture?

Why are you so intent on reinforcing your reputation as a dick head?

It's the appropriate humourous response to your deliberate obtuseness.

[Iwannaplato]

'you' are still NOT being clear "iwannaplato". There NEEDS to be forms of censorship, right?

You tell me.
I wasn't trying to say there should or should not be censorship or in regard to what. If I had tried to make that clear, then I wasn't clear.

[Iwannaplato]

God knows the religious right can be offended by pretty much anything. If the Bible wasn't their Bible, the sex, violence, incest and aspersions cast upon God would likely get it banned.

Probably not in the libraries that host frightening caricatures of women to entertain the children, in close physical contact.

Probably not what? How does this relate to what I wrote?
Both sides (and they are the ones who think there are only two) can be crazy. Does the idiocy of one excuse the idiocy of the other?
Did I somehow seem to have a team and it's not your team so I'm bad? We should all pick a side and turn a blind eye to 'our own' idiocy?
Seriously, it's like dealing with bots.

[Harbal]

It's the appropriate humourous response to your deliberate obtuseness.

My obtuseness is natural, not deliberate, and your respose was childish, which is not appropriate coming from an adult.

[Walker]

It's the appropriate humourous response to your deliberate obtuseness.

My obtuseness is natural, not deliberate, and your respose was childish, which is not appropriate coming from an adult.

On the contrary, highly appropriate for it is civilized, and it assumes you aren't as stupid as you sound when you don't recognize that the demonic looking creature is enough to frighten the children, so they must be acclimated, i.e., groomed to weirdness.

However, I also realize that you had not seen the picture before you posted your question, since the postings were time-stamped one minute apart, and likely simultaneous.



That's what happens when you condition yourself to asking questions, Quckdraw McGraw.

[Walker]

Probably not what? How does this relate to what I wrote?

Because the religious right tolerates crap like that picture, it's likely to tolerate the Bible, and not be offended by the Bible.

This is not to say the bible is crap, which would be a twisted interpretation.

It is to say that Christians are tolerate of even the stuff that happens in that picture, and the evidence is that it happens.

It is to say that Christians are tolerant and wise beyond the limitations you project.

Me? I think that demon-looking thing is a f***** freak.

[Harbal]

On the contrary, highly appropriate for it is civilized, and it assumes you aren't as stupid as you sound when you don't recognize that the demonic looking creature is enough to frighten the children, so they must be acclimated, i.e., groomed to weirdness.

Yet the parents are happy for their kids to be groomed to the weirdness of the Bible. I know which I find the most sinister, and it's not the guy in a frock.

[Harbal]

Me? I think that demon-looking thing is a f***** freak.

It's only a guy in fancy dress; keep a sense of perspective, man.

[Walker]

On the contrary, highly appropriate for it is civilized, and it assumes you aren't as stupid as you sound when you don't recognize that the demonic looking creature is enough to frighten the children, so they must be acclimated, i.e., groomed to weirdness.

Yet the parents are happy for their kids to be groomed to the weirdness of the Bible. I know which I find the most sinister, and it's not the guy in a frock.

Oh Harbal. Your responses are just too cute. Already got you covered on that one.

This is not to say the bible is crap, which would be a twisted interpretation.

To the posterity of my own quotation, I will add, neither is this to say that the bible is weird.

[Walker]

Me? I think that demon-looking thing is a f***** freak.

It's only a guy in fancy dress; keep a sense of perspective, man.

A fucking freak of a guy, fer sure, as defined by appropriateness to the situation.

[Harbal]

A fucking freak of a guy, fer sure, as defined by appropriateness to the situation.

Maybe the reason I am not frightened by him is because I'm not secretly attracted by him. I think you protest a little too much, as they say.

[Walker]

Maybe the reason I am not frightened by him is because I'm not secretly attracted by him. I think you protest a little too much, as they say.

I think you ignore the fact that your deliberate obtuseness, spread in one-liners over many postings, requires many postings to answer when they are not simply ignored, and to this you attribute the label of protest, when actually it is just indulging your meandering trail over time.

The fact that you're attracted to that demon-creature says a lot, and in principle, it's why San Francisco literally smells like shit these days.

Too much tolerance of both weird, deliberate crap ... and the crap that just come out naturally.

[Walker]

Yet the parents are happy for their kids to be groomed to the weirdness of the Bible. I know which I find the most sinister ...

The demon is the most sinister, and the bible is not weird.

[Harbal]

The fact that you're attracted to that demon-creature says a lot,

Well if he's managed to get the Bible freaks all worked up he's okay with me.