View Full Version : Hiring male hookers would be cheaper
w2amr
07-16-2007, 09:56 PM
Pass the plate so we can pay for this. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e85fbc2c-32f5-11dc-a9e8-0000779fd2ac,_i_rssPage=61e21220-6714-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html)
W4INF
07-16-2007, 10:16 PM
But.. Im not Catholic. I wont have to pay for this. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
kb2vxa
07-17-2007, 04:00 AM
Isn't it interesting how the Church solicits funds from the congregation to pay for the sins of the clergy? On the basis of that philosophy I can commit a crime and have you go to prison for it.
Notice how the moral authority of State has usurped the moral authority of Church?!
n6hcm
07-17-2007, 06:09 AM
that's more than $1 million per "victim" in this settlement. it's a good thing the church has deep pockets . . .
(and yes, i know that rome doesn't pay a penny of this--this all comes from the archdiocese of los angeles .. )
w2amr
07-17-2007, 08:22 AM
Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ July 16 2007,23:09)]that's more than $1 million per "victim" in this settlement. #it's a good thing the church has deep pockets . . .
(and yes, i know that rome doesn't pay a penny of this--this all comes from the archdiocese of los angeles .. )
......... and manage to STILL stay in business. The flock fleecing continues.
KP3FT
07-17-2007, 03:11 PM
I don't get it...weren't any of these guys arrested, or did they just get away with it?
Those darn islamics!
Seriously. Organized religion is evil.
Run, run as FAR away as you can!
KC2RPP
07-17-2007, 03:20 PM
Notice how this topic is unappropriate and the Moderaters simply DO NOT CARE
KA9VQF
07-17-2007, 03:26 PM
Quote[/b] (KC2RPP @ July 17 2007,09:20)]Notice how this topic is unappropriate and the Moderaters simply DO NOT CARE
Son, this is rag chew. So long as you follow the rules anything goes.
RULES:
Quote[/b] ] “Discussions of all types unrelated to amateur radio. No explicitly sexual topics. No hate speech. Respectful disagreement is encouraged.”
It really doesn’t have to be appropriate.
KC2RPP
07-17-2007, 03:30 PM
Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ July 17 2007,11:26)]Quote[/b] (KC2RPP @ July 17 2007,09:20)]Notice how this topic is unappropriate and the Moderaters simply DO NOT CARE
Son, this is rag chew. So long as you follow the rules anything goes.
RULES:
Quote[/b] ] “Discussions of all types unrelated to amateur radio. No explicitly sexual topics. No hate speech. Respectful disagreement is encouraged.”
It really doesn’t have to be appropriate.
his is sexually explicit note:hookers hmmm what are hookers??? i wouldnt know. I guess i can post a thread about Prostitutes or Playboy.
w2amr
07-17-2007, 03:42 PM
Quote[/b] (KC2RPP @ July 17 2007,08:20)]Notice how this topic is unappropriate and the Moderaters simply DO NOT CARE
A little over 200 posts and ready to take charge.
w2amr
07-17-2007, 03:44 PM
Quote[/b] (KC2RPP @ July 17 2007,08:30)]Quote[/b] (KA9VQF @ July 17 2007,11:26)]Quote[/b] (KC2RPP @ July 17 2007,09:20)]Notice how this topic is unappropriate and the Moderaters simply DO NOT CARE
Son, this is rag chew. So long as you follow the rules anything goes.
RULES:
Quote[/b] ] “Discussions of all types unrelated to amateur radio. No explicitly sexual topics. No hate speech. Respectful disagreement is encouraged.”
It really doesn’t have to be appropriate.
his is sexually explicit note:hookers hmmm what are hookers???
Here, have a nibble.
http://www.redriverhookers.com/images/hookers640.jpg
Quote[/b] (KC2RPP @ July 17 2007,07:20)]Notice how this topic is unappropriate and the Moderaters simply DO NOT CARE
That's "inappropriate" station.
If you're going to be sanctimonious, learn how to spell.
Besides all that, "Rag Chew" is the dumping ground for all the dreck they don't want on the other forums. It serves a purpose.
Dave NX6D
Tulelake, CA
w2amr
07-17-2007, 04:02 PM
Quote[/b] (nx6d @ July 17 2007,08:50)]Quote[/b] (KC2RPP @ July 17 2007,07:20)]Notice how this topic is unappropriate and the Moderaters simply DO NOT CARE
That's "inappropriate" station.
If you're going to be sanctimonious, learn how to spell.
Besides all that, "Rag Chew" is the dumping ground for all the dreck they don't want on the other forums. It serves a purpose.
Dave NX6D
Tulelake, CA
Oh God, you mean we are dreck dumpers? Say it ain't so Dave, say it ain't so ! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
kf5er
07-17-2007, 08:41 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ July 16 2007,15:07)]Notice how the moral authority of State has usurped the moral authority of Church?!
The State hasn't 'usurped' anything. The state/s upheld the law. Difference...
KB1KIX
07-17-2007, 08:45 PM
Think of this as a faith version of the carbon tax.
We pay the church to absolve us of our sins - just like a carbon tax.
The church takes our "sin tax" and uses it to pay for their clergy "sin".
It's all a shell game no matter how you look at it.
Jonathan
n6hcm
07-18-2007, 05:32 AM
Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ July 17 2007,08:11)]I don't get it...weren't any of these guys arrested, or did they just get away with it?
it's a civil case--no arrests, no sentences, and a lower burden of proof ...
so many of these cases are so old and the powers-that-be covered things up well enough that there's not a lot to go on (and, in many cases, the accused are dead).
KB1KIX
07-18-2007, 05:39 AM
Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ July 18 2007,01:32)]it's a civil case--no arrests, no sentences, and a lower burden of proof ...
so many of these cases are so old and the powers-that-be covered things up well enough that there's not a lot to go on (and, in many cases, the accused are dead).
I agree with the "covered things up" bit.
civil cases having a lower burden of proof would make them easier to prove, no?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I had to take a few business law cases - they hammered how much easier burden of proof is to prove in civil than criminal (like in the OJ Simpson trial).
Can we day - McDonalds and hot coffee!!!
Jonathan
kg6top
07-18-2007, 12:49 PM
If it were'nt for the rag chew forum, where else would Greg post all his inane news links?
n6hcm
07-19-2007, 12:23 AM
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ July 17 2007,22:39)]civil cases having a lower burden of proof would make them easier to prove, no?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
right, but you still have to prove it. if the evidence is sketchy because, say, there was significant obstruction of justice, then you may never prove it (or it may take a much longer time).
the archdiocese of los angeles settled because (a) it was expedient to do so, (b) they get the benefit of a known settlement (a jury may well have awarded much more money in punitive damages), and © his eminence the cardinal won't have to testify in a trial.