Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (141954)	4/29/2002 1:01:38 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>yeah, but at least in the past there was shame to discourage sin. now people seem to flaunt the fact that they have no morals.<< come on. rome's empire was in the past, right? have you any idea what kind of crap they did? >>i'm not sure there is anything he can be charged with.<< time to change the laws, then. >>i'm not referring to the cover-up part. i'm saying that the media makes it seem as if a larger than actual percentage of priests molest.<< john and ken on kfi are very aggressive in this story. they readily admit that few priests molest. they also point out that management's policy was to cover up and that most, if not darn near ALL, of the priests knew what was going on and did NOTHING. that is the story. and it is BIG. >>but the media doesn't make too much of a fuss about the rampant homosexuality in the priesthood which is far more prevalent.<< consensual sex and rape are two entirely different things. if i had resources to attack one problem to resolution, it would be the rape of minors. btw, would you feel better if the priests were committing heterosexual fornication instead of homosexual fornication? funny, i always thought both were sins and i always thought the wages of sin was equally doled out, regardless of the specific sin. therefore, isn't the real issue fornication? why single out just one side of it then?