Re: IS THE PAPACY VALID?

In article <9kbda7p9naaqb25980eh2dkodvsnrh2n12@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:33:08 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L. Measures.) wrote:

In article <i7bba7tvh6p5516i197csmfkipj4eanmqo@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:46:17 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L. Measures.) wrote:

In article <v348a7pie6c4fn6huk9enrs4j04n6vs7ij@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:38:46 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L. Measures.) wrote:

In article <6pe5a7t5kjqrh7rog7fr28c71ise0fb1bc@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:36:15 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L.
Measures.) wrote:

In article <9t43a715c48rtuoigr4qgmimsbejp1dd1e@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:53:45 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L.
Measures.) wrote:

In article <i2j0a7dqo5oebi2j7ij3nf738hq395g6ll@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:33:33 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L.
Measures.) wrote:

In article <46cu975gvjns55n7fp1ivfjfergaqrb53f@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:08:37 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L.
Measures.) wrote:

In article <1rto97hbu1er9aqofdsjsecak02ic2413u@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:33:26 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L.
Measures.) wrote:

In article <tkll97t1o80n68meqqsfsn6klmbijj36mu@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:26:44 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L.
Measures.) wrote:

In article <ol8g97p1ql8e03voqpur9f21m8oqh3ai1g@xxxxxxx>, duke
<duckgumbo32@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:46:41 -0700, rL@xxxxxxxxx (? R. L.
Measures.) wrote:


? The trials would have been a PR disaster.

But not $3 billion without trials?

? $3,000,000,000 was the bargained price of not trying the
buttrammers.

A whole lot of scam artists would have gone empty hanged
with the
trials. No
witnesses, you know.

? So the RCC was scammed ?

In some cases.

? > 50%?

No idea. You're closer to them than I am.

? I haven't been around a priest in over a dozen years.

Most of the action was well before then.

? hope springs eternal.

All the action was when you were around them.

? you seem to have forgotten that I live across Calleguas Creek from
quite likely The hottest love nest in the altar-boy scandle --
I.E. Saint
John's Semenary [sic]. .

I didn't forget.

? If I had had a good telescope I might have been able to sell
admissions
to those who were willing to pay to see priestly emissions.

Yep, some people will do anything for money.

? still defemding sodomist priests. Think you that the BVM does not
notice this?

I'm not defending them. I'm waiting on confirmation of guilt

? $660,000,000 in hush money is a pretty damn good clue.

I've already told you it was about love for the hurt even without a trial.

? It would have created quite the sensation to have an altar-boy testify
that he was granted absolution at the moment of insertion.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. They didn't.

? $660,000,000 bought silence of the sheeple in this Archdiocese.

--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IS THE PAPACY VALID?
    ... In article, duke ... I haven't been around a priest in over a dozen years. ... quite likely The hottest love nest in the altar-boy scandle -- ... $660,000,000 in hush money is a pretty damn good clue. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: IS THE PAPACY VALID?
    ... In article, duke ... I haven't been around a priest in over a dozen years. ... quite likely The hottest love nest in the altar-boy scandle -- I.E. Saint ... $660,000,000 in hush money is a pretty damn good clue. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)