I feel the same way sometimes at religious ceremonies (I often wonder what the hell my family’s going to do when I get married without a religous ceremony).  Here’s one of my favorite exerpts from George Carlin’s book Napalm & Silly Putty:

But folks, I have to tell you, in the bullshit department a businessman can’t hold a candle to a clergyman.  Because when it comes to bullshit.  Big-time, major-league bullshit.  You have to stand in awe - in awe! - of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion.  No contest.
Religion- easily - has the Greatest Bullshit Story Ever Told!  Think about it: religion has actually convinced people - many of them adults - that there’s an invisible man who lives in the sky and watches everything you do, every minute of every day.  And who has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.
And if you do ANY of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to remain and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry, forever and ever, till the end of time.  But he loves you!
He loves you, and he needs money!  He always needs money.  He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, but somehow… he just can’t handle money.  Religion takes in billions of dollars, pays no taxes, and somehow always needs a little more.  now, you talk about a good bullshit story.  Holy shit!

Stupid Evil Usher!  THAT’S my new career path!

“Welcome to the Stupid Evil Tabernacle A Go-Go, sir, ma’am.  I’m sorry, you can’t bring that in here; no irrational beliefs are allowed in the sanctuary.  But you can check them here at the door and reclaim them when you leave, assuming you even want them by then.  Please put on this Thinking Cap.  Here are copies of today’s reading by Richard Dawkins.  Enjoy your Freethinker Experience!”

Sir,

As a recent graduate of the Rev. Buddy Bell system I must take umbrage at your obvious blow off of this fine man’s training. I for one, always had trouble finding my own ass with both hands (as most in the congregation do), but thanks to “Rev Bud” (that’s what WE Alumni call him) I can now, not only find my ass but I can now find YOUR ass a seat with nary a mis-step! Now I know you could argue that the Catholics have this finding an ass (any ass) thing readily built into their ecumenical curriculum, but as almost any evening newscast can show, without Rev Bud’s highly refined situational qualification system this can break down i.e. finding the ass then forgetting about the seat part. This sort of thing never occurs in our congregation anymore!

The whole tone of your diatribe shows that you, for one, have never had your anointing distracted or as the good rev calls it anointus interuptus. As one who has witnessed what can happen when any type of oil gets into the wrong hands, let me tell you it isn’t pretty.

One last point if I may be so bold, God has been much happier since he has been receiving all the money that goes into the basket without some untrained money grabbing usher emptying the big bills into his pocket.

Thank You,

P.S. Please don’t make the mistake of picking up the new Usher DVD at your local retailer, it is NOT a quick reference guide put out by Reverend Buddy and tends to cause confusion on Sunday mornings what with all the crotch grabbing in the aisles.

I know how you feel, Les.
I was at my cousin’s verrrrrrry Catholic wedding a year ago.
My brothers and I cracked up at the statue of Jesus in a gold lam� loin cloth.
I think he must have been rehearsing for the Gay Mardi Gras!

P.S. Please don’t make the mistake of picking up the new Usher DVD at your local retailer

I just snorfled hot espresso through my nose.  That hurt.

GeekMom, Goodlooking Evil Bastard and Les are cracking me up. Clever stuff there guys.

This thread has nothing but humor potential and rightly so.

First ironing and now church?!?!  Poor Stupid Evil Brain Cells.  What a month. Here’s an excerpt from one usher training session that was especially humorous. 
[Quote]Also consider the possibility of asking each of your ushers and greeters to visit another church on a Sunday morning to observe and personally feel the impact of their welcoming ministry. This should be a church where they know no one, and probably one of a different denomination. Provide an evaluation sheet on which the can “grade” the churches that they visit.[/Quote]

Wouldn’t want one of those other churches having a better God plan than we do.  Sneaky little bastards.

What �Causes� Homosexuality?
People are �born gay.� Therefore, it�s impossible for anyone to change. This myth is primarily based on two widely reported scientific studies:
1) The study of slight differences in the hypothalamus region of the brain of homosexuals as discovered by Dr. Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute in San Diego, California.
2) The study of identical twins done by Dr. J. Michael Bailey from the Department of Psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois and Dr. Richard C. Pillard of the Family Studies Laboratory, Division of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine.
Research attempting to show a biological or genetic cause and effect for homosexuality dates back almost a century. But over the years, no research has ever proven a biological basis for homosexuality.1 The latest studies on brain research and identical twins are just another attempt trying to establish a genetic link.

The Secular Media Perpetuates the Myth With Biased and Inaccurate Reporting
On August 30, 1991 the headlines in many newspapers and popular magazines claimed:
� �Brain Stem Part Different in Gay Men: Studies Suggest Biological Basis for Homosexuality� (Seattle Times).2
� �Are Gay Men Born That Way?� (Time).3
� The cover of Newsweek magazine asked, �Is This Child Gay�Born or Bred?: The Origins of Homosexuality.�4
� �The Survey of Identical Twins Links Biological Factors with Being Gay� (Los Angeles Times).5
Almost all of the newspaper articles written concerning Dr. Simon LeVay�s brain research concluded that he had found genuine scientific evidence that homosexuality was both biological and genetic in nature�but this just wasn�t true.

I. Dr. Simon LeVay�s Theory
Dr. LeVay studied a certain group of neurons in the hypothalamus structure of the brain (called INAH3 or interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus). He examined 41 cadavers, 19 of whom were allegedly homosexual men, 16 of whom were assumed to be heterosexual men, and 6 of whom were assumed to be heterosexual women. He found that some of the neurons in the hypothalamus region of the brain of heterosexual men were larger than those he found in homosexual men. He therefore theorized that if homosexual men had smaller neurons, then possibly these smaller neurons were responsible for causing these men to be homosexual. Likewise, if heterosexual men had larger neurons, then possibly these larger neurons caused them to be heterosexual. He assumed that if the size difference in neurons could be shown to be true 100% of the time, this would be evidence that homosexuality was biologically based. But even his own statistical chart published in Science magazine, revealed that his theory was flawed.

LeVay�s Statistical Chart Revealed Flaws in His Theory
Dr. LeVay�s chart revealed that 3 of the 19 homosexual men actually had larger nuclei than did the heterosexual men. Also, 3 of the heterosexual men had smaller nuclei than did the homosexual men. Thus, 6 of the 35 male subjects he investigated, or 17 percent of his total study, contradicted his own theory.6 Yet in spite of this contradiction, the Associated Press reported that Dr. LeVay had always found that the nuclei were larger in heterosexual men and smaller in homosexual men. Again, that simply wasn�t true.

No Proof That This Region of the Brain Is Related to Sexual Orientation
No scientist has ever proven that the particular region of the hypothalamus under discussion causes sexual orientation. Consider the comments of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi who specializes in working with male homosexuals. He has appeared on several network television programs and has been interviewed by prominent weekly news magazines. His book, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, has gained him world-wide respect as an authority in same-sex attractions. Dr. Nicolosi emphasized, �We�re talking about a general area of the brain that has to do with emotions, including sexuality; but in this particular nuclei, we have no clear understanding of what function it serves at this point.�7 Dr. Charles Socarides, Professor of Psychiatry at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, also emphasized the following, �I believe this theory is completely erroneous. There�s no possibility of somebody developing homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes. It�s just impossible.�8 He further noted that �the question of a minute section of the brain�sub-microscopic almost�as…. deciding sexual object choice is really preposterous…. Certainly…a cluster of the brain cannot determine sexual object choice. We know that for a fact.�9

Cause or Consequence
Even if the anterior hypothalamus area of the brain could be shown to relate to sexual behavior, it still would not answer the question of cause and effect. Scientific studies have indicated that behavior itself might cause the size of the neurons to fluctuate�rather than the neurons causing specific homosexual or heterosexual behavior. For example, Dr. Kenneth Klivington, assistant to the president of the Salk Institute where Dr. LeVay did his study, has pointed to �a body of evidence showing the brain�s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain experiences.�10 Therefore, the difference in homosexual brain structure may be a result of behavior and environmental conditions.

Sexual Orientation Not Verified
In addition, Dr. LeVay did not know conclusively the sexual orientation of those he studied. Some were alleged to have been homosexual; others may have been bisexual; others may have been homosexual yet passed themselves off as heterosexual. We simply don�t know.11

Research Bias
Dr. LeVay is on record as saying that he set out to prove a genetic cause for homosexuality after his lover�s death. He is openly gay himself and said if he did not find such a cause he might abandon science altogether.12 Therefore, it is not incorrect to say that his study was politically biased to justify homosexuality, attempting to make it as acceptable as heterosexuality. As Newsweek, February 24, 1992, stated, �He is promoting the idea that homosexuality is a matter of destiny, not choice. �It�s important to educate society,� stated LeVay.�

Interpretation of Measurement Questionable
Even the measurement that Dr. LeVay used is suspect. Do you measure the nuclei by size, by volume, by actual cell count? Do you measure them by density? What do each of these measurements mean? And again, has anyone scientifically established that INAH3 has any impact at all on sexual orientation? No!

Study Lacks Replication
There is no replication of this finding in any other scientific study. In fact, at least one study by Dr. Schwab in the Netherlands flatly contradicts it. Thus, there is no clear evidence to back up Dr. LeVay�s research. (Nicolosi interview)

Notes:
1 In a longer report we have examined the biological theory and found no biological cause for homosexuality. In the Family Research Report and other publications, the Family Research Institute of Washington, D.C. frequently evaluates the scientific literature on this topic. Interested parties should contact the Family Research Institute, P.O. Box 2091, Washington, DC 20013 for documentation. Dr. Nicolosi points out that he has examined the entire range of literature relating to the alleged biological foundations of homosexuality: �I myself have reviewed all the literature, including LeVay�s study, and I certainly don�t believe, and I don�t think any scientist really believes that there is a biological predetermination for sexual orientation. There�s much more evidence for early environmental factors that would set the stage for a person�s sexual orientation� (Dr. Nicolosi Interview, The John Ankerberg Show). Alfred Kinsey himself, as cited by W. B. Pomeroy, his research associate, in Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research (New York: Harper & Row, 1970, p. 147) confessed, �I have myself come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.� Perhaps this explains why Masters and Johnson themselves emphasized, �It is of vital importance that all professionals in the mental health field keep in mind that the homosexual man or woman is basically a man or woman by genetic determination and homosexually oriented by learned preference.� (cited in Gerhard van den Aardweg, Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About Treatment and Change, Ann Arbor, MI: Servant, 1988. p. 32).
2 Seattle Times, 30 August 1991.
3 Time, 9 September 1991.
4 Newsweek, 24 February 1992.
5 Los Angeles Times, 15 December 1991
6 �Homosexual Brains,� Family Research Report, June/September 1991. See the evaluation of the original report in Science magazine available from the Family Research Institute.
7 Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, taped Interview for �The John Ankerberg Show.�
8 Dr. Charles Socarides, taped Interview for �The John Ankerberg Show.�
9 Ibid.
10 Dr. Kenneth Klivington, Newsweek, 24 February 1992.
11 The homosexual reporter M. Botkin concedes this in, �Salk and Pepper,� Bay Area Reporter, 5 September 1991, pp. 21, 24, cf., �Homosexual Brains,� Family Research Report, June/September 1991, p. 1.
12 Newsweek, 24 February 1992.

II. Bailey and Pillard�s Study on Identical Twins
The second scientific study that the media uses to propagate the myth that homosexuality is genetically determined is the prevalence of homosexuality among twin and adopted brothers by Bailey and Pillard. Bailey and Pillard recruited the subjects for their study through homosexual publications which cater exclusively to the homosexual population. Thus, their study did not represent a randomized, non-biased selection.1 They found that of the homosexual brothers that responded 52% of identical twins, 22% of fraternal twins, 11% of adoptive brothers were homosexual, and 9% of non-twin brothers were homosexual. Bailey and Pillard theorized that the reason there was such a high percentage of homosexuality among identical twins was because of their identical genetic make-up.

Problem
Half of the identical twins were not homosexual; rather, they were extremely heterosexual. How could this be if they shared the same genes? Cohen noted: As identical twins have identical genetic make-up, it is much easier to interpret the findings as supporting the nurture rather than the nature theory. If a homosexual orientation is genetic, then 100% of all identical twin brothers should have been homosexual, but only half were. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that environmental factors, not genes, cause homosexuality.2 Dr. Simon LeVay admitted that neither Bailey and Pillard�s study on identical twins nor his brain research has proven that homosexuality is genetically determined: At the moment it�s still a very big mystery. Not even my work nor any other work that�s been done so far really totally clarifies the situation of what makes people gay or straight…. In fact, the twin studies, for example, suggest that it�s not totally inborn because even identical twins are not always of the same sexual orientation.3

Pillard�s Biased Agenda
Dr. Pillard is himself a homosexual. He admits that his agenda is to promote the notion that homosexuality is in-born and therefore a natural sexual behavior.

III. Leading Scientific Researchers Conclude Homosexuality Is Not Biologically or Genetically Based
Masters and Johnson stated: �The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today… no serious scientist suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies.�4 Dr. John Money, leading sex researcher at Johns Hopkins University, reported: No chromosomal differences have been found between homosexual subjects and heterosexual controls. [and later] On the basis of present knowledge, there is no basis on which to justify an hypothesis that homosexuals or bisexuals of any degree or type are chromosomally discrepant [different] from heterosexuals.5 He also stated: �The child�s psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth.�6 Even John DeCecco, the editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, said: �The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is foolish.�7 No less than Alfred Kinsey himself believed that homosexuality was not biologically or genetically based. Rather, he admitted: �I have myself come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.�8 Dr. van den Aardweg stated: �No genetic factor�sexual or otherwise�has been found that would differentiate persons with homosexual tendencies from others.�9 In the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry that the Bailey/Pillard piece on the lesbian twins appeared, two well-credentialed researchers at New York State Psychiatric Institute, said: �There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory of sexual orientation.�10

IV. If People are Born Homosexuals, Then Why Do Studies Show They Switch From Homosexual to Heterosexual to Homosexual Orientation?
In their 1970 report the Kinsey Institute stated that 84% of gays shifted or changed their sexual orientation at least once. 32% of the gays reported a third shift, and 13% of gays reported at least five changes.11 If sexual orientation is biologically fixed at birth as gays say, why do 84% of them change their sexual orientation at least once? In 1981 Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith reported similar findings to those of Kinsey: Further, 84% of the homosexuals vs. 29% of the heterosexuals reported a shift in their sexual feelings or orientation after their first appraisal (1981b, p. 91); 60% of the homosexuals vs. 10% of the heterosexuals reported a second sexual orientation shift (1981b, p. 92); 32% of the homosexuals vs. 4% of the heterosexuals reported a third sexual orientation shift (1981b, p. 93); and 14% of the homosexuals vs. 1% of the heterosexuals reported yet another sexual orientation shift (1981b, p. 95). These data may suggest that prehomosexuals were considerably more apt to be sexually confused in their feelings than preheterosexuals were.12

Notes:
1 See �Twins Born Gay?,� Family Research Report, January-February 1992 and other materials from the Family Research Institute.
2 In Richard A. Cohen, Perpetuating Homosexual Myths (Seattle, WA: Public Education Committee, 1992 rev.), pp. 18-19.
3 Dr. Simon LeVay, taped Interview for �The John Ankerberg Show.�
4 William Masters, V. E. Johnson, R. C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984), pp. 319-320.
5 In Judd Manner, ed., Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal (New York: Basic Books, 1980), pp. 9,66.
6 John Money, Perspectives in Human Sexuality (New York: Behavioral Publications, 1974), p. 67.
7 John DeCecco, ed., Journal of Homosexuality, quoted in USA Today, 1 March 1989, p. 4d.
8 Cited by W. B. Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 147.
9 van den Aardweg, pp. 30-31.
10 William Byne, M.D., Ph.D., and Bruce Parsons, M.D., Ph.D., Archives of General Psychiatry, March 1993.
11 See �Born That �Way,� Family Research Report Special Report 1991.
12 A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference Statistical Appendix (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1981), p. 261.

Hey, notBow, does this mean you could incorporate de-gayification therapy into usher training?  ‘Cause that would be really cool… “Train effective ushers AND fix their homo tendencies all in our special DVD package!”

Yeah, I remember when I made the choice to be hetero.  There I was, about 12 years old, thinking, “Hmm, girls?  Or boys?  Could go either way!  Let’s see, now, eenie, meenie, minie, moe…” 

(Note to literal-minded god-shouter: that did not really happen.  I never made a “choice” because it is not a choice.  My attractions were just natural to me, as are, I imagine, the attractions of gays.)

Anyway, being an usher is lots of fun.  After you know the congregation well enough, you could make sure and not seat people together who might get into fights, or start making out, or otherwise disrupt the service.  Which is so common that an usher manual I once saw mentioned it.

I find it somewhat amusing when anyone claims that they’ve found the ‘answer’ to sexual orientation, pointing wildly to the mistakes that others have made, and then saying “see, they were wrong, so I—must—be right.”

  Not that long ago, it was the—left—who was claiming that sexual orientation was not genetic.  And YES they had a political goal behind that claim.  David Reimer’s case [As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl] is—still—being argued over.  And this case is back in the news due to Reimer’s recent suicide.

  Anne Fausto Sterling still believes that Reimer’s case doesn’t “prove” anything, and that individual sexual orientation/gender identification can still be socially constructed.  As much as I might sympathize with Sterling’s desire to promote the idea of nurture before nature, I think Reimer’s case pretty much lances that preconception.  Unfortunate, because it just provides more ammunition for those who would point to certain types of people and say ‘see, they’re—born—bad.’  It opens up to door to all sorts of essentialist positions that are racist/sexist/etc.  Not surprising that the left would want to resist that.

  Of course, the fact that gender identification/sexual orientation may—not—be socially constructed does not necessarily mean that it is a—choice—.  There are all sorts of non-biologically determined aspects of a person’s character that are NOT subject to being changed.  There are aspects of individual character that, if you try to “deprogram” them out of someone, will—break—that person.  Or the deprogramming efforts will simply fail.  I’ve read a LOT on both sides of this argument, and I still can’t come to a personal determination.  I tend to suspect that, as with many things, the truth is a combination; it’s probably a combination of nature, nurture, and early childhood processes of identification and individuation [cum Lacan/Freud].

  I would—like—to believe that homosexuality is NOT a genetically determined factor.  I don’t have any problem at all with it being socially determined.  But gay penguins and the case of David Reimer have rather challenged my lefty-inspired wishes about what I would—like—to be true.

So, again, I think it’s kind of funny that J. Ankerberg, of the Ankerberg Theological Research Center

thinks that because some researchers have been—wrong—that he somehow “knows” something.

  (Oh, if you’d like to read other fascinating works by Ankerberg, or contribute to his ministry, just go to http://www.ankerberg.com)

By the way, IWillNotBow, unless you’re actually Ankerberg, it’s considered polite to give some sort of attribution.  Maybe even a link

Of course, that might call into question the potential biases of good sir Ankenberg.  No penguins in his document, I notice.  Oh well, maybe he’s anti-penguin.

Stop the hate!  Love your penguin brothers!

And if anyone wanted to look at some of the less—dated—studies in the potentially genetic component of homosexuality, I’ve provided a link.  Looks like it’s not only possible that homosexuality may have a genetic component, but that there may be several different (as many as six?) expressions of these genetic factors.

It’s interesting that one of the theories posits homosexuality as a recessive trait that actually increases the “fitness” and thus the “desirablity” (to women) of heterosexual men, when it remains recessive.
study discussing the possible biological origins of homosexuality

Is this guy right?  Hell, I doubt it.  But if he’s not right, maybe he’ll contribute to the next guy’s work, and the next’s, until someone—does—nail it down. Science before soapbox, as it should be.

I can only speak for myself, but I was recruited by heterosexuals who indoctrinated me into their deeply conservative world of sleeping with women for sexual pleasure. We aren’t born with any sexual preferences at all so this whole being “born straight” is just a load of crap cooked up by self serving god hating Republicans. I was young and impressionable and they took advantage of that, now I am an avowed hetero and live in fear that the government might begin passing constitutional amendments targeting my way of life. Since it is within my power to choose to go against my conditioning and become the gay man I was always meant to be I suppose I should just go ahead and do that.

From here it is only a matter of time until I am attending church and working on the Bush campaign (heterosexuality is like a gateway drug), but that’s a story for another day.

Guess I was wrong when I said this thread has nothing but humor potential but I reserve the right to laugh, still, at some of the stuff that’s been posted after my statement.

Looks like I was born correctly folks, but I took a perfectly good sexuality and fucked it up. I’ve been falling ever since. Don’t feel sorry for me though - I must have known what I was doing.

Had I seen IWillNotBow’s email before the first couple of responses to it I would’ve deleted it for the simple reason that it’s attached to an entry that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Why the fuck do these idiots have to keep writing replies that have nothing to do with the subject being talked about?

I always wonder about these posts that are off topic and odes not make a mention about it either being off topic a mention about the site. And the fact that the poster never comes back makes me wonder is this a spam bot. Maybe there is a program that search for certain key words and then print out a comment?

If that’s the case, let’s try to guess which keywords in Les’s original post triggered the spam!

I vote for:
usher
wedding
well-trained
models
Barney
hugs

I vote for:

religious spam

I probably shouldn’t have even responded to the damn post, but it irritated me in a way that only sanctimonious pseudo-science can.

Well if it was a bot then I feel pretty damn silly responding to it.  (I was a Christian for 20+ years, so I know all about responding to someone who isn’t there…)

Hmm… I like the sound of well-trained models and Barney hugs. 

more ammunition for those who would point to certain types of people and say ‘see, they’re—born—bad.’ It opens up to door to all sorts of essentialist positions that are racist/sexist/etc.

  Off the top of my head - humans do have hormones of both sexes present, and maybe their presence plays a part in sexual predisposition.  I can see this playing a part in being born with hetero or homo tendencies.  As far as being “born bad”, I think that environment has a more significant part in that. 

Or maybe it’s just my caffinated brain driving down the wrong side of the road.

I’m not sure the essentialist position provides much ammunition to anyone.  For instance, when I say my attractions were natural to me, I’m not making a distinction between biological and sociocultural influences.  However they mix, the bottom line was “here’s how I am.” 

The real issue is, why do some people feel the need to control what is natural for someone else when consenting adults are involved?  What’s so important about making sure no one else comes to a different bottom line?

What an extremely funny bit until the “sexual” thing popped up.  I was laughing my ass off up to then.  I expected it to be deleted but I can see Les’ point on leaving it stand.  But I was so enjoying myself and felt the wit could have continued on if the non-entity would have gone someplace else..  An “Old broad” pushing 70 don’t care if you like boys or girls because I’ve learned it is only important that you love one another.  So go away and let me laugh a couple of more years ‘cause time flys when you are having fun.

You know what?  I just realized something…

GeekMom, Goodlooking Evil Bastard and Les are cracking me up. Clever stuff there guys.

This thread has nothing but humor potential and rightly so.

DAMN IT BROCK!  You just HAD to JINX it, DIDN’T YA?  DIDN’T YA?!

You know, it always seems that when there’s a group of people sitting around, joking, and having a good time, some asshole has to throw his politics in there to fuck it all up. 

IWillNotBow?  You are a fucking moron.  You may not be bowing, but you certainly are taken in to all this homophobic bullshit pretty easily.

You’re right!  Damn the interloper!  It wasn’t Brock’s fault, it was those of us who took the bait. And I was the first gullible idiot!

The next time some dipstick drops in a totally tangential tirade I will ignore their opportunistic asses!  I WILL NOT RESPOND!  WHO’S WITH ME?!

(Clenches knife in teeth and jumps over railing.  Cue in splash, footage of circling sharks…  rest of crew stands looking into water shaking heads)

Hmm, maybe the poster made a typo and had intended to write “IWillNotBLOW” ...

In which case it was a poor misguided gay person trying to talk himself out of his own genetic predisposition.  How sad.

DOF, watch out for the Shrieking Eels, dude ...

Maybe they should get some Hooter’s girls to be ushers…  collection plates would be a lot more full.   Wings & beer, lunch and dinner, and don’t forget to tithe your waitress!