ROFLMAO!Here, you can have the missing two;MuHa ha ha ha!
Just three roses, it needs to be a lot more literary to get five.
What discussion?
You haven't said anything worth discussing.
we don't deny the existence of missionaries.What do atheists call the missionary position?
What do atheists call the missionary position?
'Port', alluding to a wine, is also the side of a boat opposite the one the 'stearing board', or, 'Starboard', is located on, usually the 'left' side of a boat as most were and are, right handed. A clever double entrendre, my friend, appreciated at least by me.
Amicus...
I can think of a couple of people who are smart enough to play this dumb...
Sweetsubsarahh...I hope it was not you and I am not going to scroll back and look, but someone criticized wmrs2 for being on a 'porn' site as a Christian, and yet English Lady is not immoral for thus partaking?
Literotica is perhaps by definition, a site for erotic literature, which I personally do not define as 'pornographic', although it seems most do. I personally contribute erotic stories and engage is discussion here, does that, in your eyes, make me a pornographer?
just sayin' (copied that from someone)
ami
Trolls are getting desperate and more vulgar. No matter what language is spoken here, trolls would not comprehend it.
Let me help you think. The looking glass self, troll.
Ami -
Have you actually read the thread?[/QUOTE]
~~~
Sweetsshh, I am going to take exception to your question because it appears so often from those who critique my commentary.
The answer to you and to all who question is, yes, I read the thread, every post from beginning to end as I do in any topic I participate in. I also read her other thread about crucifying young girls.
Since the question arises frequently, I think I have a glimmer of understanding as to why you and others consistently say and maybe even think, I do not read or comprehend the content of the post/thread.
Over the years I have presented, in bits and pieces, an entire philosophy that most all say is alien to them. From pro life, to the feminist mistake, to homosexual impotency, to the slavery of communal life and most hurtful, I imagine is my total rejection of the liberal contribution to art and society.
You, I guess, simply do not comprehend how anyone could express and advocate a philosophy and a sense of life so opposite from yours.
I understand exactly where wmrs2 is coming from and she knows that I understand. Her world view is young and incomplete, but she is learning and has stated that.
Many of the 'usual suspects' here, not to aim this directly at you, are solidly convinced that your 'sense of life', your conclusion on issues is correct beyond questioning.
When I say abortion is murder, you sneer at me. When I say homosexuals are sterile, by definition, the response is simular. When I question that feminism has changed society in some not so pleasant ways, the hairs go up on the necks of most who read.
I understand the lack of philosophy, morals and ethics of the radical left but you don't have a clue to understanding where I am coming from, not the slightest clue and that leads many to ask if I actually read or understood that which I offer commentary on.
I have many times compared modern progressive liberalism with Christianity and I postulate that both are faith based belief systems which one cannot approach with reason and rationality with any success because they is based on the assumption of faith.\
wmrs2 readily admits that her 'sense of life' is faith based, not one liberal here, ever has.
My sense of life is reality based, when you query any position I hold, I can explain it in a reasonable, rational manner and will do so for anyone who asks.
This is overly long, I know, but, as I said at the outset, so many question whether I read and/or understand, I felt it was time to respond in a rational manner.
I do read. I do understand. Y'all are just wrong. meh!
Amicus...
I know...
Heh, the last refuge of the liberal, attempted character assassination, izzat a felony?
ami
