Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Don't Post In Any Thread Fundy Starts

If you look below this thread, there are two more threads which fundy has started, you can see who started them by looking at the name underneath the last line.

Fundy likes to erase his threads. Which means you might have been having a really interesting discussion, or there is important information on a thread you would like to make reference to, and poof it's gone.

I'll try and post reminders as often as I can at the bottom of his threads. Please post responses to Fundy's topics in a different thread - ANY thread, the conversation will start over.

If everyone can remind people NOT to post on Fundy's threads, and if we can be more assertive about starting a new blog topic for people to have discussion that would be great.

50 comments:

furnace said...

What fundy is doing is Mormon Fundamentalism in action. If you don't like the evidence or the way things are going, destroy the evidence. Mormon Fundamentalists hide meeting tapes and other evidence and give out only the written words, and often destroy entire sermons from the pulpit because they don't like them. For example, not all of Uncle Roy's or Uncle Rulon's sermons are printed; some that aren't really go against what it happening today.

I personally think fundy removed that thread (Constitution and Bill of Rights) because it contained a link to www.mormonfundamentalism.com. There was starting to be discussion that things were wrong all along; not just when Warren came in. Like a typical fundamentalist, other groups today are wrong, but OUR past is correct, so he had to destroy evidence of OUR past being wrong, too.

desert darling said...

So where does it start? How far back do we go?

Anonymous said...

Warning www.mormonfundamentalism.com contains copywrited material that can't be linked to without the authors permission.

Anonymous said...

So what are copyright laws? If you don't quote anything, but state that on this site it talks about thus and so in a general sense, is that a problem? I didn't think anyone would object for one site to say "here is a link to ..."

ATAR_i said...

6:07 where are you getting your information?

Most sites ARE copyrighted - it's how they protect their intellectual property, however linking to them doesn't violate that or constitute any sort of theft of intellectual property. Although this site does not contain a copyright symbol, it is implied that you do not take the content and use it as your own. LINKING to it is another matter altogether. Rather like someone looking at a home and thinking it's pretty, and someone robbing that home. NOT the same thing.

I just did a search of sites that link to MormonFundamentalism.com and the sites that link to it are sites like

1. wikipedia
2. Google
3. Attorney General
4. rootsweb
5. aarweb
6. finest image
7. profiles.yahoo.com
8. knowledge.com
9. wortwolken.de
10. linklite
11. geometry.net

Linking to this site is not a violation of any type of copyright law - PERIOD!

Atlanta antipolygamist said...

Atari,Do you know anything about the polygamist colony on the Georgia-Tennesee
border?I cant seem to find anything on them in mormonfundamentalim.com.Does any
one know how the Georgia clan is related to Warren Jeffs and the FLDS?

onthestreet said...

You all complain about Fundy deleting posts, but that is what your local Hitler (Admin) does regularly, like burning Bibles. Censureship is exactly what Hitler had to do, to win anyone over. He had to censure certain ones in order to dupe the public, to avoid the stinging truth. So not only has Admin deleted dozens of my own posts, but now Fundy has deleted dozens on his blog, even entire threads. Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?

Anonymous said...

Do a search on this blog and you will find your answer.

fttc said...

Street

That is typical of you and those following warren. Your posts were deleted because you refused to follow the rules of the house (much like warren refuses to follow the rules of his country). Some were for vulgarity, some were just not nice to others. Both of these were against the rules set forth by Admin. Neither become the status of saints as you portray those trying to follow warren. Admin does not delete anything because he doesn't agree with the ideas. Don't even try to equate Admin's deletions to Fundy's.

Fundy has left many a dead thread up on the blog until they went into the archives. The ones he has deleted are those that started to discuss or say things he did not personally agree with. Who is exercising censurship?

muggsey said...

Response to furnace:

From documents that are in general publication it is not only the fundamentalists who like to waffle and waiver. Was Joe Smith visited by Moroni or Nephi. That seems to change back and forth over time. When did the Smith family move to Palmyra? That too seems to change with who ever writes the history. When did J.S. actually get the plates in hand? Was it i825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829. I've seen each of these years used in references to the event. What happened to the 'seer' stones when the plates were removed? When discovered in the New York museum did the papyri supposedly recording the 'Pearl' not have a word concerning any Biblical Character, neither Moses nor Abraham are mentioned. Egyptologists translations determined that the writings related to funeral directions, not inspirational works? Why should I believe the BOM? It was written by one guy, a known charltan, who alone received an inspiration? Why should I believe his wild tales of escaped Israelli tribes on the American Continants? There is no proof. Why should I think that Joseph Smith was able to "correct" Holy Writ that had been available to man for as long as 3000 years or as short as 1820 years? There are too many inconsistancies for Mormon to be given any credibility.

furnace said...

Muggsey,

What you say may be true concerning the Mormon Chuch, but I think that the Mormon Church is actually a lot more honest than Fundamentalism. If I dared post this on a fundy thread where he is always talking about the lies of the Mormon Church, I could expect the thread to vanish.

TBM said...

When discovered in the New York museum did the papyri supposedly recording the 'Pearl' not have a word concerning any Biblical Character, neither Moses nor Abraham are mentioned.
Muggsey! I went into great detail explaining that one on a now archived thread, in response to that exact same question, posed by you. Did you even read that post? Or are you the sort of person who is so determined to believe what he wants to, that he won't listen to any contrary voice? I confess to being a little ticked.

fttc said...

TBM

You're finally getting up to speed. Muggsey has been dwelling on this and other issues, that he refuses to admit that both sides beg questions on, ever since he started to post. It seems that if an anti-mormon is the source it is unquestionable with him. His next response will likely be his testimony on the saving grace of Christ, as though no one else here believes it. He will probably throw in some vulgar words about Joseph Smith as well.

Anonymous said...

I posted this on one of Barlow's threads, but it may be better if responses to it were posted here.

Just a few questions (I know, you are not supposed to question, just put it on the shelf. Unfortunately , the shelf got too full, and some of the questions wouldn’t stay put. When I tried to force them to stay, the whole shelf broke.) and points of observation:

1) There are just as many boys as girls born into the world. Mathematically, how does polygamy work without many of these boys never getting married?

2) If your answer to the above questions is that the boys (or men) are not worthy, does this mean that women are usually more worthy and why?

3) In the FLDS culture, the man must hold the Priesthood to have a wife or wives. What qualifies a woman? What disqualifies a woman? What qualification must she have other than being submissive and willing to have children?

4) It seems that a lot of brides are taken very young. Is this because they are more "pure" or simply because they are more submissive? Is there a difference between “purity” and submissiveness?

5) In the FLDS, control teaching (right to rule, one man rule, the prophet speaks for God, and now the prophet is God) is the mainstay of what is being taught. This is what most of the “higher teachings” of the last 8 years or so has been. If this is really the "family order of Heaven" why are not family values and leadership through love the emphasis of the teachings?

IITMOC

Anonymous said...

This was posted in fundy's Blood Atonement thread:

Fundy,

Since you insist on bringing up this blood atonement issue, I have a simple question.

In the days of Jesus, a woman was brought before him because she had committed certain sins that in that day made her worthy to be stoned to death (kind of similar to blood atonement, is it not). I hope you know what His reply was. Now I think Jesus had it right, and the woman wasn't "atoned", but was actually forgiven if she would forsake her sins and do them no more. When did we rise above Jesus to the point that we can judge other (I thought we were to forgive all and leave judgement to the Lord) and when did we become so pure and perfect that we are sine free to the point that metaphorically speaking we can “cast the first stone”?

IITMOC

TBM said...

Good questions anon 4:57. But you don't honestly think any fundamental on this board is going to give you an answer, do you?

Anonymous said...

Who is "we" iitmoc?

Anonymous said...

"we" refers to any fundamentalist who thinks they are perfect enough to be judge and executioner.

IITMOC

Anonymous said...

tbm,

Perhaps I won't get any answers from the "fundamentalists", but those questions deal directly with the basis of the belief system in many of fundamentalist groups. If there aren’t any fundamentalists who care or dare to answer, it is quite probable they don't have an intelligent answer.

IITMOC

Anonymous said...

IITMOC:
The answers to your questions are obvious to the FLDS. So obvious that they are not even a question. But for you who do not know here are your answers.

1- Plurality does not apply to all people. No one here is forcing anyone else to live it. Who invented mathematics? I am sure He knows what He is doing.

2-Girls are typically more spiritual than boys, because of their nature. Worthiness is earned through obedience. It is easy to rebel, it takes more integrity to obey.

3-A woman must be converted. And baptized. You didn't know? Priesthood is not "position", it is responsibility, and it is trustworthiness to be an example of obedience.

4- They are married because they want to be married, only after they want to be married, and how they want to be married. Yes purity and obedience are the same thing. Submitting to God, because you love to.

5-The prophet is not God, but obedience to God is obedience to His Preisthood. I dont know where you got your teachings the last 8 years but leadership through love and to values are how to obey, and were not added in only the last 8 years.

May I suggest reading the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Journal of Discourses, Uncle Roys, and Uncle Rulons sermons, for all your questions are easily answered there. Why ask them here?

Maybe you dont really want answers, but have an agenda of hatred also.

I ask you. If your choice was made out of integrity, why do you have to hide your feelings from your family? Why do you stay?
And I ask you. Is obedience not required in your religion?

CTR

furnace said...

CTR,

Go read some of Steven Hassan's works. Everytime you post, you only prove more and more than Warren is a cult leader.

Anonymous said...

furnace,
I am sorry that any religion that requires obedience is considered a cult. I do not care. The Bible is filled with what you, and probably Hassan would call cultism. But the fact that I have a religion that I want to follow expressly, does not make me dumb. Why would I want to read about anti-religion?

CTR

ATAR_i said...

iitmoc - I thought you had some great questions.

I didn't realize that women were considered purer by nature than men - is this a real FLDS belief (or something akin to ots's immaculate conception)?

CTR good point - you are getting exactly at what Krakauers book touched on in it's last chapters. If you haven't read it, reading it is worth it for that alone. The book brings you to this place where you think how 'how in Gods name can they believe this' and then shows you (if you are religious) that the same faith that allows you to believe, allows someone else to believe.

Anonymous said...

atar_i,

Actually, I'm hoping for someone to explain just exactly what "purity" is in the FLDS. So far it appears that purity = submissiveness, which would explain the high number of child brides.

IITMOC

onthestreet said...

CTR 8/19/2006 11:19 PM

STREET's Reply: I was in the process of answering those questions when I came across CTR's answers. I could do no better. It pretty well hits the nail on the head.

Atar: Like CTR just said:
furnace,
I am sorry that any religion that requires obedience is considered a cult. I do not care. The Bible is filled with what you, and probably Hassan would call cultism. But the fact that I have a religion that I want to follow expressly, does not make me dumb. Why would I want to read about anti-religion?

CTR

8/20/2006 12:39 PM

Anonymous said...

Atari-
Girls are not "purer" than boys, but are by nature more religiously inclined, because of their closer relationship with those who are pure; innocent children. Men tend to want to conquer, while women tend to want to pacify.

About the Krak book, I started to read it, but I couldn’t finish the first chapter, it was sickening to me that Krak associates abuse and force with the religion I was taught. Like "Banking on Heaven" it takes the most vile things people have done, and assumes that they are a part of our belief system. They represent my "religion" as well as what is seen on Maury Povich represents yours.

CTR

furnace said...

I take some of the Bible with a grain of salt, too.

Anonymous said...

CTR,

For the sake of being a father and defender of your family, I would seriously study up on cults. What does your family have to look forward to besides holy chants of "holy holy holy prophet. Help us be as holy as thou art" and not have enough skills to support a family of their own. I know one father that not only didn't defend his family, he took a wife away from one of his sons and married her.

That is why I would read anti-religious writings of Hassan. You owe it to your family to educate them and help them get skills in life to support themselves should they decide to leave the group. There is no free agency and choice as you state, unless your children are educated to the point they can leave if they want to. Cults make people dependent to where they cannot survive outside of the group.

ATAR_i said...

CTR - yes, I suppose it wouldn't have the same impact being that your are FLDS. But I learned something from that book that I didn't anticipate. In fact, it turned the whole book on it's axis for me, and made it less about the brothers and LDS, and more about the power of belief.

Anonymous said...

anon6:48-
GO AHEAD and study whatever you want. I have noticed that most all of those who study cultism end up denying all religions. I personally have much better things to study.

I am sure you want us to assume that your example of that father is one of the FLDS fathers. I more than severly doubt it, it CANNOT be true.

The requirement of a parent is to be a good example, not just teach them, but show them. The group doesnt support the young men who stay, they have to support themselves too.

All are free to leave whenever they want to. And I dont know of any who did not survive outside the group.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said... atar_i, Actually, I'm hoping for someone to explain just exactly what "purity" is in the FLDS. So far it appears that purity = submissiveness, which would explain the high number of child brides. IITMOC 8/20/2006 11:43 PM

STREET's Reply:
The FLDS are taugh all their lives that purity begins with body and mind: Sexual Purity, which of course is the very opposite of the “submissiveness” that you suggest. Obedience, yes. Sexual submission, NEVER, for such are apostate and cast off. Only "the pure in heart shall see God". The elect of God conceive of God, while sowing in the Spirit, never in the body.

ATAR_i said...

And that would be a new revelation - as I am not aware that the BOM or the D&C state that women conceive with God.

I think that's the hugest argument AGAINST POLYGAMY there is.

The FLDS women don't need men, they can conceive from God, and they have food stamps and etc for maintenance.

I think all the men can leave now (according to street - they are not necessary)

Anonymous said...

All are free to leave whenever they want to. And I dont know of any who did not survive outside the group.

8/22/2006 3:03 AM


You don't know very much then. I'm sure I don't know everything either, but there sure as hell are several that I DO know who have NOT survived outside the group. Where do you categorize David Draper or Clayne Jeffs, for instance. They ended their own lives, right? Nope, they didn't survive did they? And there are others I know of who I will not name here.

I know many young women who go into lives of drugs, prostitution, abusive relationships and suffer terrible mental anguish. They have few social skills not to mention employable ones. They leave knowing in their gut they cannot survive INSIDE the FLDS cult but don't know how to survive OUTSIDE either without help - which is too often very hard to find because they don't know it even exists. It's one thing to go on breathing (surviving?), and another to actually find quality and purpose of life.

As to all being free to leave whenever they want to... what are you smoking?????

Free??? No, no, no, not free at all.

Are you free if all your life you've been told you'll lose your salvation and be destroyed if you leave? Are you free if you've never heard there is any other possibility... because, after all, where much is given, much is expected? Are you free if you have no idea there are actually many many good, decent people (not all evil and satanic) out in this big wide world of many choices? Are you free, if you are not even allowed to choose where you live, whom you'll marry, how you can decorate your walls, what you can wear, what you can hear, what you can read, or how you'll speak (or not speak) one to another? Are you free if your natural curiosity about anything outside your indoctrination is constantly denigrated? Are you free if you are ostracised for even THINKING about "such things?"

You are NOT free if you're not raised as a unique individual with a healthy sense of self-esteem and a whole world of choices (instead of being "one of the group").

Now, I won't be surprised if your rebuttal is something like, "Well, that's what you get when you reject the truth. You just prove my point. That was your choice."

Bullsh*t!! I suppose your definition of survival is "alive and breathing." Mine includes something about happiness and contentment along with it.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (8/22/2006 4:58 PM):

And that would be a new revelation - as I am not aware that the BOM or the D&C state that women conceive with God.I think that's the hugest argument AGAINST POLYGAMY there is. The FLDS women don't need men, they can conceive from God, and they have food stamps and etc for maintenance. I think all the men can leave now (according to street - they are not necessary)


STREET’s Reply: The children come from God. All believers in God know this. God’s elect are conceived by godly men while they both are in the Spirit, not the body. Your misconceptions are legion, for legions of devils possess legions.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of freedom, are you free to leave if the wife is pressured to leave you. Thank heavens mine had enough sense to stay with me. One person tried to get ahold of her emotions (once they do that, it's all over--then they can't think rationally). They told her, "You know your beautiful baby--if you go along with your husband, you won't be able to hold him in your arms in the next life." She retorted, "I'm going to raise him to manhood in THIS life!"

I know of a woman who told her husband that she agreed with him that this religion was nonsense, so the husband developed the courage to leave, only to have a flood of women like a dam bursting come and convince the wife that her husband was in error and to leave him. Some freedom, huh! If you want to lie about people being free to leave, then !%$#&!@#, leave the women alone.

Anonymous said...

That FLDS father that 3:03 denies being an FLDS father happens to be one of the twelve high and holy.

ATAR_i said...

Freedom The capacity to exercise choice, free will

The condition of being free of restraints

A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference.

Freedom, liberty, license

These nouns refer to the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints. FREEDOM is the most general term. LIBERTY stresses thte power of free choice, and LICENSE denotes deliberate deviation from normally applicable rules or practices to achieve a desired effect.

12:32 I think you are right. There isn't freedom or liberty, and they should be willing to acknowledge that.

I think they want to state there is freedom because it sounds good, but in reality, I think they will have to admit they do not have the ability to do as they please, I doubt they even believe in the ability to do as they please. It's probably a sinful thought to them.

desert darling said...

CTR

Maybe all in the FLDS were not as united in the last 8 years as you seem to think.

Anonymous said...

12:32-
"Are you free if all your life you've been told you'll lose your salvation and be destroyed if you leave?"

No my reply is not see I told you so. It is this:
If you did not believe in the church and want to leave, then why in the world would you be concerned that you would damn in hell if you left? If the church isnt true, than why you are even worried? I would venture to say that the mental anguish is called "conscience".

Street- Babies are born because of physical contact(even Jesus)

9:17- It is hard to FORCE your wife to leave, isnt it? Maybe he should have had faster courage!

9:21- Twelve? Poor kid, you are trying to brainwash those who don't know better. (It probably is working. Atari?)

atari- All are free to do as they please, but at the same time, we cannot choose what what happens as a result of the choice. It is automatic. True?

CTR

Anonymous said...

Desert Darlin-
Nope, they weren't. Uncle Warren knew more than I did.

CTR

onthestreet said...

NONNY Said (8/23/2006 9:17 AM): They told her, "You know your beautiful baby--if you go along with your husband, you won't be able to hold him in your arms in the next life." She retorted, "I'm going to raise him to manhood in THIS life!"

I know of a woman who told her husband that she agreed with him that this religion was nonsense, so the husband developed the courage to leave, only to have a flood of women like a dam bursting come and convince the wife that her husband was in error and to leave him. Some freedom, huh! If you want to lie about people being free to leave, then !%$#&!@#, leave the women alone.

STREET’s Reply: Ahh, there it is: That is correct (your first paragraph), that’s what those kinds of women have to do with those kinds of husbands, try to raise them to manhood. That would be correct. Now, as for your second paragraph, by the husband rejecting the religion of heaven, by rejecting Christ, doesn’t automatically mean that the wife “agreed”, as you are trying to make people believe such a hoax that wives must accept the corruption of their husbands, you see?

And then, just because she has dear sisters to talk to, does not equate to slavery or imprisonment. Quite the opposite. Imprisonment is having NOBODY to talk to. Then, you have to cuss because some women were saved and you weren’t so favored, but why? It is all in the Spirit that we possess, and our acceptance of purity and good order in our minds and in our lives, that determines if we have the security, love, and support of others, or are among the “five unwise virgins” locked out.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (8/23/2006 9:25 AM):
Freedom The capacity to exercise choice, free will,
The condition of being free of restraints,
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference.
Freedom, liberty, LICENCE…

STREET’s Reply: See, LICENCE! You smacked the nail on the head again, so well put my dear. All of society know that when men or women take LICENCE, then they are criminals. Tarry and others just think that taking LICENCE is good and proper, the very thing that tears families and societies apart. You would be some leader, indeed, in a mob and other illicit activities.

Saints are just not interested. You are going your way, and we choose our Lord who saith: I AM THE WAY.

desert darling said...

CTR

Are you inside or outside? I would be assuming you are outside because you are even talking to us. What made you leave?

ATAR_i said...

License is a synonym. I even included the definition lest you trip up on it. NOTICE it is the definition of license NOT of freedom.

meaning.....

You are still 24 cents short of a quarter.

By the way - do you have a drivers LICENSE?

Does your prophet have a marriage LICENSE?

Do any of your FLDS faithful have a business LICENSE.

Your FLDS FAMILIES must be flailing in the wind with all the illicet licenses they have...

tsk tsk tsk.

Anonymous said...

CTR wrote,
I am sorry that any religion that requires obedience is considered a cult. I do not care. The Bible is filled with what you, and probably Hassan would call cultism

You are absolutely correct! Consider the following sarcasm directed at Dr. Laura

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses sex advice to
people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as
anobservant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abominaton according to
Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in anyircumstance. The followingis
an Open Letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident,which was posted on
the Internet:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some
advise from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how
to follow them.

a)When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b)I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for
her education by law ?

c)I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d)Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
......Why can't I own Canadians?

e)I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement
project ?

f)A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?

g)Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact
lenses help ?

h)Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How
should they die?

i)I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j)My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't
we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with
people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confidentyou can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

onthestreet said...

TARRY on Licence (8/24/2006 7:57 PM):

You said “Freedom, liberty, license” (8/23/2006 9:25 AM): Any intelligent minds know that in that context, licence does NOT refer to the taking out of any kind of a certificate, but rather the loose FREEDOM and LIBERTY to act as if TAKING LICENCE, all three of which terms you associate together as one concept. And all intelligent minds know that “TAKING LICENCE” is indeed a negative concept.

How can you promote such a wicked thing, except for a wicked society?

onthestreet said...

CTR Said (8/24/2006 12:54 AM):
Street- Babies are born because of physical contact(even Jesus)

STREET’s Reply: You make the Immaculate Conception NULL AND VOID. Immaculate means clean of any contact with gross-element, and the body is anciently and traditionally known as "the gross element", in comparison to the spirit, to sow in a spiritual way.

Anonymous said...

No touchy, no feely, no baby.

Or... maybe you're talking about evolving into a some perfect life form that requires spores rather than sperm cells.

Let's face it... OTS will never conceive any children... not in this life... even if he does ever get a wife. LOL

ATAR_i said...

Bottom line - you have a license - you're a bad man street.

Ikh hob dir in drerd.

onthestreet said...

I'll say this furya, miss buquet, bucket: If the wicked (that would be bad men) stumble over my words, like stones in a street, I guess your are correct:

I'm a "bad man street".