Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murder by prayer: When is enough, enough?
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


(2)
Message 50 of 284 (576749)
08-25-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2009 8:31 PM


The Good Samaritan and the Bad Parent
Hi, DA.
I noted in your list of cases that only one involved an injury--the toddler who bled to death because he was a hemophiliac.
The mistrust of physicians made some sense in the era recorded in the Bible: they had little to offer against disease, most of it harmful. Without a theory of disease, taking an illness as the judgment of God wasn't entirely unreasonable, since nothing physicians could do made any difference, and sufferers lived or died in an otherwise willy-nilly fashion.
Still, wounds were washed and bound. For example, the Good Samaritan did that-- he didn't merely pray that God's will be done.
Similarly, prayer-only healers today lack a theory of disease: God's will must be done, but we can petition the Lord with prayer to spare some child already condemned by being sinful and unclean (the biblical explanation of disease). Nonetheless, in the only case of injury you cite, they did bandage the boy's cut.
The contradiction is obvious. If survival is a matter of prayer and God's will, then why interfere with injuries and not with illness?
The mystery of illness gives these parents the cover they need, psychologically and socially. Mikey slashing his femoral artery on a fence is unmistakably an event in the natural world, and they treat it as such--what parent, even among these pitiful examples, would say, no, let the boy bleed; God will decide. Nor, I suspect, would they say, no, don't set my broken leg, it's up to God. Nor would the courts and legislatures fold so readily in the face of parents who kept EMTs from taking their car-struck kid to the ER.
These modern parents also lack a theory of disease other than the supernatural. Their victims die from their parents' ignorance, not their failure of faith or God's lack of mercy. An educational system that cannot sustain the teaching of evolution as a fact cannot reliably teach the real causes of disease. Ignorance loves a vacuum.
So I'd say faith-only healing should, at most, only be allowed at or after the age of consent.
After all, you shouldn't be able to kill your kids at a younger age than strangers can fuck them.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 8:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 62 of 284 (576986)
08-26-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by archaeologist
08-26-2010 5:22 PM


Suffer, little children
(Y)ou really got to get off this women's thinking mode and see the reality. Children are not immune to things that take place in adult lives. sin is sin and God judges them all the same.
Hi, archaeologist.
Does this include newborn infants?
Christ said, "Suffer the little children..."--not "Suffer, little children."
Society can interfere with the way you mistreat your dog, let alone your kids.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by archaeologist, posted 08-26-2010 5:22 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 8:18 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 64 of 284 (576994)
08-26-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by archaeologist
08-26-2010 5:07 PM


Jesus Christ, Sex Therapist?
Christ...believed and taught the creative act. you are far from anything christian.
So God sent you here to pre-sort Christians and non-Christians? Or do you just think She's not up to the job?
Christ said he brought a New Covenant.
You seem to be a classic Old Testament Christian, too fond of hate and killing to embrace a loving Christ.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by archaeologist, posted 08-26-2010 5:07 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 82 of 284 (577112)
08-27-2010 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 4:18 AM


God kills newborns for their sins?
you are ignored, i do not respond to people like you who only want to do personal attacks.
Translation: You have no good answers.
Correction: You didn't ignore my questions, you merely fear them.
I can expose your venomous, Devil-quoting-scripture impersonation of a Christian, and you will just sit there silently and take it?
That would be the most Christian thing you've done here.
The Old Testament (in Job, among other places) rejects the notion that God rewards the just and punishes the wicked according to a scheme comprehensible to human beings.
Hush...just sit there and think about it.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 4:18 AM archaeologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Huntard, posted 08-27-2010 8:37 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 84 of 284 (577117)
08-27-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 8:18 AM


Re: Suffer, little children
Does this include newborn infants
i knew someone would bring it up if i didn't say anything but i hesitate to delve into the fine details because of the danger of my words being mis-used, abused, twisted and so on.
See? You weren't ignoring my questions, merely fearing them.
people like to think that God spares new borns from judgment, an dit is possible BUT scripture indicates that may not be so. HOW God handles this i do not know as certainly though the babies are born with a sin nature, how can they repent?
"HOW God handles this I do not know..."
That's not the problem; the problem is your certainty about how God handles anything.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 8:18 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 6:26 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 85 of 284 (577118)
08-27-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Huntard
08-27-2010 8:37 AM


Re: God kills newborns for their sins?
Yes, arch and I crossed posts. I have since replied.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Huntard, posted 08-27-2010 8:37 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 105 of 284 (577282)
08-27-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by archaeologist
08-27-2010 6:24 PM


Why Are You Here?
it is clear you only advocate a double standard not honesty.
'Freedom of' also includes 'freedom from'
now you are just twisting the constitution to fit what you want it to say. NOTICE it says 'shall not prohibit the practice...' which means you all cannot top parents from practicing their faith and praying for the healing of their child. you also cannot argue against it, for as i have shown, because you cannot prove that taking the child to the hospital would have saved his or her life..
you argue out of assumption, hatred and emotionalism and not facts.
archaeologist, I don't understand why you are here.
You refuse to support your claims or answer hard questions, because, "you just want an answer that you can manipulate to fit your ideas and i will not do that."
You stake claim to parental rights so extreme they constitute absolute property rights.
When other posters point out the perverse consequences, you accuse them of dishonesty and inappropriate remarks--and refuse to defend your view or explain how you can completely shut society out of the individual family without the tragic consequences with which other posters confront you.
I take you at your word that you are a Christian. So I might expect you to evangelize by sermon or deed, but no one could think that from your posts. You represent a religion of love and forgiveness with hatred and condemnation; claiming a faith of "turn the other cheek" and "a soft answer turneth away wrath," you instead relish trading blows.
Perhaps you've achieved your goal. You've brought this thread to a white heat.
But if you wanted to promote your faith by word and deed, you have failed.
That's why I'm puzzled. What do you want to achieve here?
Edited by Omnivorous, : +if

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by archaeologist, posted 08-27-2010 6:24 PM archaeologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2010 12:31 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 131 of 284 (577388)
08-28-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Coyote
08-28-2010 12:31 AM


Re: Why Are You Here?
Hi, Coyote. Are you an eastern coyote? Your avatar looks a bit robust and...wolfy.
What you say is true. He is here to preach.
And if he represented some sect that embraced the sturm und drang and tribal blood-letting of the Old Testament while rejecting the New, I could understand his conduct here.
But he claims to be a Christian. The angry, wild-eyed, Israel-cursing prophet who sweeps down from the mountaintop to, oh, sic bears on and kill 40 kids who teased him (or whatever), was supposed to go out of style with the teachings of Christ.
Unremitting divine wrath and punishment were supposed to be replaced with grace and forgiveness.
Yet arch seems to be all about punishment. He is happy women can't 'bat their eyes and hitch up their skirts' (paraphrased) to avoid punishment when, according to Christ, all anyone has to do is ask forgiveness, and they receive it by grace.
Make no mistake: I am an agnostic only by my reluctance to accept the lack of evidence of a God as absolute proof of nonexistence. Most folks would place me solidly in the atheist camp.
But I was steeped in the Protestant Christian tradition (Southern Baptist and Church of the Nazarene), and I know a devil quoting scripture when I hear one.
Edited by Omnivorous, : More sub/verb agreement.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2010 12:31 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Nij, posted 08-29-2010 12:36 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


(1)
Message 134 of 284 (577422)
08-28-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by archaeologist
08-28-2010 4:54 PM


The Devil I Know
archaeologist writes:
it is amazing that you think you can read my mind.
I don't need to read your mind; I've read your words. They suffice.
So what are you hoping to accomplish here with your Christ-like behavior? Do you think the disciples began to sound like you after the first time they met an unfriendly welcome?
Why are you here?
archaeologist writes:
yet you don't for you side with him.
Yes, I do know a devil.
I hear him encourage the slaughter of innocents, all the while throwing insults and spitting hate--and claiming to be like Christ.
I figured the one thing that could get you to reply was the magic "atheist" word. Christ would think that made me the exact person he wanted to reach out to with grace and compassion. You think it makes me someone to hate and ignore.
yet God did NOT say 'use evidence' now did He? he said to use faith.
Of course we are instructed by scripture to use evidence: How else would we know ye but by your poisonous fruit?
The Christ you claim to represent said a great many things that don't show up in your posts; he taught against a great many other things that do.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by archaeologist, posted 08-28-2010 4:54 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 136 of 284 (577477)
08-29-2010 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Nij
08-29-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Why Are You Here?
Thanks, Nij.
When it comes to where the half price cups are, I never will say no

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Nij, posted 08-29-2010 12:36 AM Nij has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 140 of 284 (577506)
08-29-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rrhain
08-29-2010 3:15 AM


The Quality of Outrage
Let me take a moment to make sure we share the context of this thread.
We began with a summary of children, including toddlers and infants, who died because their parents chose prayer-only and rejected medical care in the face of illnesses and conditions that any reasonable person could see were both life-threatening and treatable.
Archaeologist responded by declaring the absolute rights of parents to do with their children as they will; society has neither the right nor the duty to investigate or intervene.
That's when the oxygen left the room.
You tasked nij with attempting to equivocate about having pointed out that absolute parental sovereignty has the necessary consequence of undetected, unimpeded and unpunished sexual abuse of children by their parents. He did not, as he remarked, equate attempts at faith-healing with parental rape.
Why do you consider the example outrageous? The practice is a deadly one: pointing out that parents could also make their kids wear poorly cut cheap polyester suits just won't do.
Rrhain writes:
If you feel the need to introduce an outrageous example in order to prove that point, then you should make sure that you, too, consider it to be an outrageous example. It isn't enough to simply say that you're not equating it because you are. Instead, you need to point out that one is a case of hyperbole brought forward simply to point out the fact that there is a line between everything and nothing and we're simply arguing over where that line is to be drawn.
I won't further belabor the point that nij was not equating attempts to heal through prayer with rape except to note that allowing children to die for spiritual satisfaction seems aptly analogized by abusing them for sexual satisfaction.
Do you believe it outrageous to suggest that parents who embrace faith healing-only in the face of fatal illness are also parents at high risk for sexually abusing their children?
Consider the correlation between the religion-based/absolute-patriarch flavor of parenting and the incidence of incestuous rape. John Hules summarizes some of that correlation on his page, Clinical and Scientific Findings Regarding Sexual Abuse Perpetrators, Victims, and Traditional Moral and Social Values.
I'll quote a few of his citations and summaries:
Alford, Jane, C. James Kasper, and Roger C. Baumann. 1984. Diagnostic Classification of Sexual Child Offenders. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior TechnologyMethods and Therapy 30: 2—12.
This study of 50 incarcerated child sexual offenders found that, while growing up, 65% attended church daily, 33% attended church weekly, and only 2% attended church rarely. The offenders found no conflict between religious devotion and sex with children.
---
Alford, Jane, Mary Grey, and C. James Kasper. 1988. Child Molesters: Areas for Further Research. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy 34: 1—5.
This study identified three factors of child sexual abuse as having their roots in the use or misuse of Judeo/Christian tradition: (1) patriarchalism places the man as head of the family and the owner of his wife and children; (2) boundaries between various exual activities become confused because all sex is considered sinful; (3) sexual activity within families is hidden behind a curtain of secrecy.
---
Blake-White, Jill, and Christine M. Kline. 1985. Treating the Dissociative Process in Adult Victims of Childhood Incest. Social Casework 66(7): 394—402.
This anecdotal study found that the incestuous father often presents himself as a quiet, solid family man who is a good provider and a regular churchgoer.
---
Doherty, V. 1988. A Feminist Christian Approach to the Sexual Abuse of Children by Family Members. Boston: University School of Theology.
In this anecdotal study of incestuous families, 88% were found to attend church regularly. The father ruled the family through intimidation, the family was likely to be isolated, and the victim was pressured to remain loyal to the family.
---
Gil, Vincent E. 1988. In Thy Father’s House: Self-Report Findings of Sexually Abused Daughters from Conservative Christian Homes. Journal of Psychology and Theology 16(2): 144—152.
In this study of 35 victims of father-daughter incest from conservative Christian homes, both fathers and mothers were regular churchgoers. Most mothers were unemployed. Many of the fathers were strict and legalistic. Neither natural fathers nor stepfathers were warm or effective in communicating feelings. This suggests that paternal participation in child-rearing, which is not common in traditional families, may help deter incest.
---
Glueck, 1955 (data cited in Mohr, Turner, and Jerry, 1964).
Only about 10% of the convicted pedophile sample were religious doubters or disbelievers.
About 20% were described as devout or fanatic, while the remaining 70% were conventionally religious.
We have good cause for concern about the power given to parental sexual predators by extreme parental rights champions like archaeologist, especially among the fervently religious patriarchs.
Edited by Omnivorous, : -your

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rrhain, posted 08-29-2010 3:15 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:19 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 147 of 284 (577978)
08-31-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 4:19 AM


Re: The Quality of Outrage
Omni writes:
We have good cause for concern about the power given to parental sexual predators by extreme parental rights champions like archaeologist, especially among the fervently religious patriarchs.
archy writes:
you have NO cause for concern for 1. they are not your children
They are human beings. I would intervene if I saw some stranger breaking his kid's fingers for stealing candy--wouldn't you? "They're MY kids" is not a license to do what you want with them; it's an injunction to take care of them.
2. these studies are worthless as they take a few case studies, whether it be 100 or 1,000, doesn't matter and ignore the MILLIONS of families where things activities DO NOT take place.
I see a big difference between 100 and 1000 dead kids.
3. we all know that studies are falsified, manipulated, altered, for political reasons.
We all know that some parents let their kids die needlessly; we all know some parents sexually abuse their children.
4. these studies are used simply to attack christians or religious people because they are different have have a purpose in life.
Religiosity and hypersexuality manifest frequently in the mentally ill, Christian or no: I'm not saying Christianity causes neglect and abuse--I'm saying neglecters and abusers are drawn to religion because of the license our society gives them.
I'd say the studies were done because someone observed the same connection I observed and decided to take a closer look. There's another instance below.
5. you all hate Christ so you take that hate out on His followers.
Jesus is just alright with me. We could definitely hang out.
6. these studies ar not objective but conducted by unbelievers who do not know anything about what they are studying.
The kids are dead, objectively dead.
A competent doctor (sometimes just a few pills or an injection) would probably have saved most of them: that's a fact.
C'mon, archy, it's not rocket science.
the abuse heaped upon christian families...needs to be stopped for it is criminal and unjust.
That's what we're trying to do.
In the meantime, across the pond they found a similar connection between sexually abusive parents and religiosity:
quote:
November 25, 2006
Prison figures show a link between sex crime and religion
Churches are being advised to protect congregations against paedophiles and rapists in their midst as The Times uncovers figures showing a clear link between religion and sex crime.
The Home Office has disclosed statistics for the first time, showing the prison population according to their faith and type of offence committed.
Two trends emerge: a strong tendency for prisoners who declare a religious faith to be serving time for sexual offences; and a large proportion of fraudsters from oriental faiths.
Richard Foot, of the charity Sanctuary UK, said that some Christians used a warped theology to justify sex crimes and tried to get out of therapy programmes.
We do know of men that go from church to church seeking children, he said. It’s an issue the Home Office is becoming particularly aware of.
The likelihood of sex offenders to adhere to a religion can be seen from the figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.
The proportion of all prisoners declaring any faith compared with those with none is about 2:1 but among those convicted of sex crime it rises to 3:1. The trend is marked across many faiths, including Buddhism, Anglicanism, Free Church Christianity and Judaism.
You see, I'm not picking on Christianity, archy: all religions are responsible for the conduct they license and encourage among their adherents.
Edited by Omnivorous, : Hit submit intead of preview.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:19 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by archaeologist, posted 09-01-2010 4:55 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 148 of 284 (577983)
08-31-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 8:29 AM


Archy, don't read this post!
Thanks for the post, archy. As Granny said, it's a definite improvement. Hearing you explain why you believe as you do is interesting; hearing what you believe over and over is...not.
As I just said in a reply to you above, I definitely agree that churches should be held accountable for their policies when those policies encourage criminal behavior.
But parents cannot shift responsibility for their actions onto their church.
Like my mother used to say, "Jimmie told you to?! If somebody told you to jump off a cliff..."
Edited by Omnivorous, : +why at "why you believe"

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 8:29 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by archaeologist, posted 09-01-2010 5:03 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


(1)
Message 150 of 284 (577994)
08-31-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 4:11 AM


Just one more thing...
Archy, I don't mean to pile on posts while you're suspended. I used to look at suspensions as a chance to read and think more carefully before responding.
So here's another opportunity for you.
archy writes:
now, one side note,
rickross site writes:
The pediatrician published a landmark study concluding many of the deaths could have been prevented if the children had received medical care.
this CANNOT be guaranteed. it is only a possibility as i have noted that a friend of mine died from a medical problem that 'could have been prevented by medical care..' in the hospital under the care of doctors.
No, there are no guarantees in medicine--or life in general.
But observe the outcome modern medicine achieves when battling childhood lymphoma (from the LymphomaInfo.Net):
quote:
Cancer continues to be the leading cause of death in children younger than 15 years old, and lymphomas are among the most common cancers seen in children. Fortunately, survival rates for childhood cancers have increased significantly over the years. Children respond to and deal with chemotherapy better than adults. Today, 96% of children diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease will survive 5 or more years, and 5-year survival rates are 86% for children diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (American Cancer Society, 2009).
What do you suppose the survival rates are for untreated childhood lymphoma? I'd say those rates are close to zero.
Why has treated childhood lymphoma survival increased from nearly 0 to 96%? Because treatment works, and because science makes it progressively more effective.
Edited by Omnivorous, : it-->treatment

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:11 AM archaeologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Coragyps, posted 09-01-2010 5:15 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3992
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 154 of 284 (578392)
09-01-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by archaeologist
09-01-2010 4:55 PM


Re: The Quality of Outrage
The immediate problem, archy, is that you insist no one can interfere with parents and their children.
You cannot even bring yourself to condemn incestuous parents.
We're not equating faith healing and sexual predation--we're challenging your idea of absolute property rights to children. I don't for a minute think that you believe parents should get away with raping their children, but you are so loaded with hate for your opponents here that you can't admit it.
Whatever. I'm done in this thread. Unlike you, that means I'm really done with it.
See you elsewhere in the forum.

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by archaeologist, posted 09-01-2010 4:55 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by archaeologist, posted 09-02-2010 4:04 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024